|
|
 |

13th December 2001, 07:31 PM
|
|
Involved - Posts
Registration Date: Jun 2001
|
|
Posts: 125
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Karma Power: 37 Karma: 47 
|
|
TL 9000 - Element 4.9 Significant Change
In Element 4.9.HV.1 it state that each time a significant change is made in the established operation (eg. A new operator, new machine, or new technique) a critical examination shall be made on the first units processed after the change.
We are in PCB assembly manufacturing. Our team members were deliberating over what is meant by ‘significant changes’. We were further confuse by the example given above such as new operator. Someone say that when there is a change in shift (‘new’ operator) the first unit processed has to be examined. Others argue that it should not be the case unless there is a product or model change. In a situation when there is a model change where 95% of the piece part/process are similar and only 5% are different would that consider a significant change? What is the right interpretation for ‘significant changes’?
Pls. advised.
|

14th December 2001, 09:03 AM
|
 |
Involved - Posts
Registration Date: Aug 2001
Location: Rutherfordton, NC
|
|
Posts: 131
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Karma Power: 36 Karma: 15 
|
|
Johnnybegood,
I'm confused.
There is no clause 4.9 in ISO 9001:2000.
Clause 4.9 in ISO 9001:1994 makes no mention of "significant change".
Where is this requirement coming from?
Regards,
Hank Fowler
__________________
Insanity - believing results can be changed without changing the processes that create them.
|

26th December 2001, 04:52 AM
|
 |
Your Elsmar Cove Host
Registration Date: Jan 1996
Location: West Chester, Ohio - USA
Age: 59
|
|
Posts: 15,857
Thanks Given to Others: 1,895
Thanked 1,566 Times in 1,018 Posts
Karma Power: 605
|
|
I expect he's referring to a QS-9000 requirement, but I don't see it said there. I'm not sure what the HV.1 is coming from.
johnnybegood: We need more info.
__________________
A Search is a terrible thing to waste!
One Test is Worth 1000 Expert Opinions - The plural of anecdote is not data.
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. - Unknown
|

26th December 2001, 07:29 PM
|
|
Involved - Posts
Registration Date: Jun 2001
|
|
Posts: 125
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Karma Power: 37 Karma: 47 
|
|
Sorry guys. It was actually in TL9000 requirement.
|

26th December 2001, 09:44 PM
|
 |
Your Elsmar Cove Host
Registration Date: Jan 1996
Location: West Chester, Ohio - USA
Age: 59
|
|
Posts: 15,857
Thanks Given to Others: 1,895
Thanked 1,566 Times in 1,018 Posts
Karma Power: 605
|
|
I haven't seen many TL 9000 folks here. Sorry I can't help out.
|

30th December 2001, 12:21 PM
|
|
$ Contributor
Registration Date: Nov 1998
Location: N. Ireland
|
|
Posts: 49
Thanks Given to Others: 2
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Karma Power: 45 Karma: 13 
|
|
I beleive that "new" operator refers to one who is new to the particular operation, not necessarly at a shift change. It may be necessary to check first off at a shift change but that would depend on the process.
4.9.HV.2 Operation Quilifactions would also be applicable to a new operator.
|

3rd January 2002, 06:14 PM
|
 |
Just Me!
Registration Date: Jun 2001
Location: Southeast USA
|
|
Posts: 482
Thanks Given to Others: 67
Thanked 26 Times in 21 Posts
Karma Power: 63
|
|
I've been out for vacation these last 3 weeks, notice lots! of posts so it will take time to get throught them all.
Johnny, you posted:
In Element 4.9.HV.1 it state that each time a significant change is made in the established operation (eg. A new operator, new machine, or new technique) a critical examination shall be made on the first units processed after the change.
We are in PCB assembly manufacturing. Our team members were deliberating over what is meant by ‘significant changes’. We were further confuse by the example given above such as new operator. Someone say that when there is a change in shift (‘new’ operator) the first unit processed has to be examined. Others argue that it should not be the case unless there is a product or model change. In a situation when there is a model change where 95% of the piece part/process are similar and only 5% are different would that consider a significant change? What is the right interpretation for ‘significant changes’?
Pls. advised.
My interpretation (what-is-right is just too arguable to claim) is: If your processes are protected to the point that a change in operators cannot affect the quality of the product being run...then there is little point in a critical examination.
To me - you should examine parts produced only when you need to do so to ensure the quality is being maintained (tooling change; product change-over (if multiple types are produced on same equipment); etc...). Your records should be taylored to identify, measure and be available to analyze what your specific needs are.
My questions would be: What do you have identified as 'critical or significant' characteristics for your parts? How do you ensure they continually meet spec? What fail-modes or defects have occured in each process? What are the turnbacks (extra handling of product or extra work done by operator to keep line running) in each process?
Based on the answers I would direct you to set up your examinations when a change occurs that has a high liklyhood (sp?) of causing/creating a quality issue. And as I stated before...your records should be set up so you can measure and analyze the occurance hazards you may deal with.
|
Lower Navigation Bar
|
|
|
|
Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors and 1 Unregistered Guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Rate Thread Content |
Linear Mode
|
|
Posting Settings
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|