The Elsmar Cove Forum Discrepancies - Determine the Magnitude and Assessing the Risk
 Forum User Name Keep Me Logged In Password
 Register Photo Albums Blogs FAQ Registered Visitors Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

# Discrepancies - Determine the Magnitude and Assessing the Risk

 Search the Elsmar Cove @import url(http://www.google.com/cse/api/branding.css); Search Elsmar Monitor the Elsmar Forum Monitor New Forum Posts Follow Marc & Elsmar Elsmar Cove Groups Sponsor Links Donate and \$ Contributor Forum Access Courtesy Quick Links Links that Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge: Howard'sInternational Quality Services Marcelo Antunes'SQR Consulting Bob Doering'sCorrect SPC - Precision Machining NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers Quality Digest Portal IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology ASQ - American Society for Quality
Post Number #1
1st November 2000, 03:32 PM
 Jim Biz Total Posts: 486

Just some "thoughts" - there are many ways to approach this:

Counting to determine the magnitude - and assessing the risk in realistic terms.

Example 2 parts of 5,000 may or may not be large enough to justify "documented correction" UNLESS the 2 defectives have an underlying life-safety criticality attached to it. - which increases the liability risk to the producer.

A level can be set at 0.5% per lot (or whichever size & % your management is comfortable with) as a "threshold" level indicating a documented action should take place.

If the root cause of a problem "occurs 4 times weekly" obviously there is a high level of risk of re-occurance, until documented correction can settle the matter.

(For example) If we produce 10,000 parts and 2 are found 0.05mm short of specified legnth
the magnitude and risk of re-occurance is viewed here as not being justified for documented actions.

Probably did not answer your question entirely - but possibly others have a better viewpoint - or other approaches to a complex wide open for interpretation standards statement.

Regards
Jim

Post Number #2
1st November 2000, 07:13 PM
 Al Dyer Total Posts: n/a
Christine,

Think about a complete FMEA review of the process in question.

Using the FMEA as a living tool is good business practice and a good way to document that the magnitude of a problem is researched.

Depending on your customers, a FMEA review is sometimes required for all corrective actions. This thought process works just as well for documenting preventive actions.

ASD...

------------------
Al Dyer
Mngt. Rep.
ullysses3@excite.com
Post Number #3
2nd November 2000, 01:28 AM
 Christine Total Posts: n/a
Discrepancies

How do you define the magnitude of the problem and risks encountered when corrective and preventive action is taken

 The Elsmar Cove Forum Discrepancies - Determine the Magnitude and Assessing the Risk

 Bookmarks

 Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)

 Forum Posting Settings You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off Forum Rules

 Similar Discussion Threads Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote topstriker FMEA and Control Plans 6 18th April 2011 06:29 AM pangchiaboon Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 6 5th July 2010 03:30 AM celia4237 IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2 12th September 2008 03:32 AM Marc National and International News 1 16th October 2006 06:17 AM bpillar Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 3 1st August 2006 04:25 AM

The time now is 03:00 AM. All times are GMT -4.