Should manufacturing efficiency be a quality function? Yes or No?

[bmccabe]

I just overheard one of our quality folks pitching a fit. Apparently, quality is now to analyze manufacturing efficiency, and trend the down time/parts per minute rate n’such. The offended quality staffer thinks that should be a MFG ENG function. Personally, I can see this analysis bringing some much needed “value added” to the quality group – Why not do it?

What do you all think?
Should manufacturing efficiency be a quality function? Y or N?

[Jim Wynne]

You say that "quality is now to analyze manufacturing efficiency" and then ask if manufacturing efficiency should be a quality function. One doesn't necessarily follow the other. I think that if quality people are expert in identifying and quantifying undesirable variation, then why not manufacturing efficiency? So long as it's understood that the responsibility for using the data to make improvements resides with the function which has the authority to do so, then it's OK by me, at least in principle.

[H. Majhenich]

Emphatically - NO!
As if we don't have everything else on our shoulders!
The only way that I feel that quality should/would be involved, would be if the push for incentive pay made people not keep up with quality. (Quantity vs. Quality)
Also, in the places that I've worked, the inspectors and quality personnel are sometimes seen as the bad guys by the floor workers (like cops,) and we don't need any more antagonism added to the mix.
But, that's just my opinion.

[Al Rosen]

Sure, why not and make improving it a GOAL!

[jbc69mc]

I think that should be a quality function even because could be a customer requirement. Much more it can make easily the monitoring processes.

[mike101338]

It is here. Should it be, I think so. It's called continuous improvement. Does it mean the quality person/department needs to do all the work? No, but the quality person/department can champion the projects. My experience has taught me we have more experience in data collection and analysis than maost, which is necessary if you're to determine effectiveness of your programs.

[Randy Stewart]

Here's my 2 cents.
The so called "Quality Department" should be more involved in problem prevention than problem finders. We're quick to find the Root Cause but slow to prevent the root cause. I'm in the process of training my technicians to be process engineers so they are more proactive to process or operator failures.
To me it is very similar to oil changes in your car. If I'm buying a used car I would prefer to buy one off the person who had regular scheduled oil changes rather than the person who only changed the oil when the idiot light came on. One is being proactive and trying to prevent failures and one is letting the failure tell them when to act.
If you have a Production Control department then you may have arguement, but as for me, I'd be more than willing to take it on.

[Claes Gefvenberg]

I added a poll to this thread.

Originally Posted by bmccabe

Apparently, quality is now to analyze manufacturing efficiency, and trend the down time/parts per minute rate n’such. The offended quality staffer thinks that should be a MFG ENG function.

That depends...

Scenario 1: A small Q dep, in some cases just one single person. Quality related tasks are handled by the line organization. In this situation (which is getting more and more common) the answer is easy: Manufacturing should do it.

Scenario 2: A more classical Q dep, dealing with everything quality related. This is different. The Q dep. can do it...

But wait: Why is scenario one getting more and more common? Because we want process owners to assume command of their processes, including quality matters. This is why I think manufacturing should do it themselves, but of course the Q dep can help them getting started if necessary. The Q dep should help them helping themselves.

/Claes