Location of Work Instructions and Cost of Poor Quality - TS 16949

[Bob Stevens]

From a seminiar on the ISO/TS-16949 specification, I have two questions.

First, I know that the "Cost of Quality" is identifying the costs associated with Internal/External Scrap & Rework costs as well as Appraisal and Prevention costs. Is the "Costs of Poor Quality" use the same criteria?

My company recently removed all paper documentation from the floor. (Work Instructions Manuals, Drawings, Etc) The new specification states that work instructions "shall be accessible for use at the work station without disruption to the job." My processes are all manual assemblies without a machine driven cycle time. With all my documentation located on PC's approxiametely 15' away from the work stations, will I have to go back to my manuals?

Thanks in advance for any help

Bob Stevens

[Rick Goodson]

Bob,

The "Cost of Quality" and the "Cost of Poor Quality" are often used interchangeably. IMHO they are the same. The discussion usually centers around what is included in the costs. While we think of the classic Prevention, Appraisal, Internal Failure, External Failure, as the components of Quality Costs, the degree to which we define the elements of each varies considerably from organization to organization. Case in point, what makes up Prevention costs? Some organizations limit the elements to the quality engineering effort prior to production. Other organizations may include part of the cost of market research, contract and document review, product design qualification tests, just to name a few. Regardless of what you call it, the elements included really should be the essence of the discussion. There is a good book on quality costs available through ASQ. "Principles of Quality Costs", ISBN 0-87389-084-1. It is not very expensive and packed with good information.

I need to think a bit about your second question. My first impression is that it is not a problem and does meet the intent of the standard since they are accessable.

Regards,

Rick

[SteelMaiden]

I agree that most people use the terms interchangeably and most of the time it really doesn't matter as long as you are getting what you need out of the info. I call ours cost of quality, not only do we use the costs of "poor quality items" we include preventive measures, training that relates to quality etc.

As for the PCs being 15 foot away, it should not be a problem as long as you don't have a restriction on your personnel that keeps them from walking up to the computer whenever they need to access it. I've done the facility intranet thing for almost a decade now. We've had people a whole lot further than 15 foot from "their computer". All we ever did to justify it was that they could walk up to any machine in the facility, click the browser and look up what they wanted. We also state that a printed version is uncontrolled and considered to be obsolete past the time stamp on the doc i.e. it's obsolete by the time the deskjet ink dries, unless verified against the current rev on the "net". But, at least if they had a task that is only performed on occasion, they can print the copy out, go across the plant and perform their job without trying to remember everything or writing it out by hand.

[db]

Now for the opposing view: Well not really opposing…but…

When determining the cost of quality, you must consider the costs of three distinct areas:
First, the cost of inspection; second, the cost of internally discovered nonconformances; and thirdly, the cost of externally discovered nonconformances. The cost of poor quality covers the second two, but only marginally covers the first. Should we generate only conforming product, the first cost could still occur, while the second and third would be absent. Cost of poor quality only involves the first area because inspection is generally a result of our lack of confidence.

Subtle difference, perhaps…anal, perhaps…inaccurate, perhaps. But it is my story, and I’m sticking with it (for now anyway)

Dave B

db, very good,

My problem is this:

Any cost of quality or additional resources needed to manufacture a product is a drain on the bottom line of a company. While good planning is also a cost, it is a cost that can be absorbed during the contract review process and be part of the piece price.

I am not so addle minded to think that things can'y go wrong, but what is achieved when processes are planned correctly, scrap is down, inspectors are not needed, and when the resources already allocated can perform a good corrective action as part of their job duties.

Maybe one of the management goals should be the reduction or elimination of the "quality" department and putting the resources into doing it right the first time.

Please Marc, remove my soapbox!!!!!!

[Elsmar Server Administrator]

Actually, a second aspect of the original post was with respect to the following, as I read it:

> The new specification states that work instructions "shall
> be accessible for use at the work station without
> disruption to the job." My processes are all manual
> assemblies without a machine driven cycle time. With all
> my documentation located on PC's approxiametely 15' away
> from the work stations, will I have to go back to my
> manuals?

You have to use common sense. First of all, not every operation even needs a 'work instruction'. During the Design / Development stage, manufacturing should have been involved. At that time the team should have determined what documentation would be necessary - including 'work instructions'. Not to mention training and other aspects of the project.

I have been in companies that were so 'hi-tech' that every work station had a computer screen. That said, it was so advanced that, while not at work stations, every other computer 'station' included a scanner. Receiving scanned in documents received with shipments (along with other data input into their MRP system). RFQs are almost all paper - they were scanned when received. Heck - they scanned in just about everything. It was a small company which manufactures gaskets.

You have to be ready to explain what needs to be where and why. If, for example, an operator does not need constant access to a document to do his/her job, the computer being 15 feet away is fine. As was expressed in an earlier post, one company keeps binders in the work area. That's really no different than setting up a computer there set up to pull up required documentation. Binders - computer - what's the difference if it's 15 feet away? Which is fine - but again, what about where an operator needs an instruction right there in their face?

OK - now we're to the subjective area. Who needs an instruction in their face (so to speak)? Who decides? What are the determining factors? Can they be defined in words? This is where common sense comes into play.

How weird can this get? Extreme example. One client had an assembly line with vehicles coming down the line (bikes, not cars). During their ISO 9001 registration audit (this is back about 1997) the auditor did not like the idea that work instructions were posted behind each assembler's 'work space' and even suggested that the company put the work instructions on the wall on the opposite side of the line so a worker could "...look across the line and see what s/he has to do. That way the worker doesn't have to turn around..." We had to argue that the type would be too small to read. To implement that, all instructions would have to be in super large font on really big pieces of paper and that having to turn around was sufficient. A second factor was that there were assemblers on each side of the line - so while you could look around a bike, often the assembler on the other side would be blocking the view of the document. They went with us - turning around was OK in that 'situation' - but in my opinion that shouldn't have even come up.

That said, be ready to explain what you have where and be ready to discuss your rationalization. As I always say - One size does NOT fit all.

[Greg Maggard]

It has been my practice to have the work instructions there infront of the workers as that is the place that needs the instruction in the first place. step by step more of a standardization of work station. Only what is needed (K.I.S.S.)

[tfish]

The auditor is not giving the line worker much credit for being able to know and understand their procedures if they cite that as a nonconformance.

The company should be able to demonstrate understanding of the procedures by providing training records and through operator questioning. Therefore, location is not as important and access and understanding.