|
|
 |
|

25th August 1999, 09:19 AM
|
|
|
Trying to elimate, or at least severely decrease, our incoming inspections
We are trying like everyone else I supose trying to elimate or at least severely decrease our incoming inspections. Several ideas have been bounced around here and I am now comming to "The experts" for how to handle this. I have said that with our new suppliers since they have either sent us a copy of their ISO or QS9000 cert.or filled out our survey and passed our criteria and are added to certified supplier list. That if we get 1.PPAP submission. 2. A certificate of compliance with every shipment I would think we are safe in not doing incoming. However I am getting some flack from internal sources, as well as suppliers that feel that is "over kill".
Please advise.
|

25th August 1999, 05:25 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
|
|
If I didn't want any receiving inspection, I'd ask for data from critical characteristics with each shipment. CofC's aren't worth the paper they're written on, IMHO.
|

26th August 1999, 01:51 AM
|
|
|
|
Debra,
By the way thanks for the reply on Gage Calibration.
We do not get any product supplied to us that requires PPAP. We do supply PPAP's to many companies and some verify our Product and some don't.
Supplier interface which require you to verify thier Quality System is meeting requirements by visiting their facility to verify if they are capable to Ship and Pack. In other words no inspection required except periodic auditing.
If thier Cpk/Ppk on selected dims. are greater then 1.67 you probably wont have any problems. This you can verify againest thier submissions. Ex. Dim 1.550 +/- .005 to thier data is over Cpk/Ppk of 1.67 and parts average 1.5505 then it is very simple to pick out two parts and see if they check from 1.5495/1.551 then you are OK. But if they check 1.553 who is kidding who!!
You need to keep them on thier toes. Tell them you wont inspect parts, but they better be OK. You can always find something bad to report to Customer to keep them at '0' defects. Sent them DMR reports that you will use as is but corrections must be made.
Bill
|

26th August 1999, 08:25 AM
|
|
An Early Cover
Registration Date: Mar 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI USA
|
|
Posts: 122
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Karma Power: 0 Karma: 25 
|
|
|
Agree with Marc that CofC's aren't worth the paper they are printed on. I believe that while CofC's were acceptable under QS9000 - 2nd edition, that has been removed from the 3rd edition.
If you can show evidence that your sub-contractor supplies you with acceptable parts, you should be able to eliminate a significant portion of your incoming inspection. Be sure to put practices into effect that alert the appropriate people as quickly as possible should any defects be identified downsteam in your process.
|

26th August 1999, 12:16 PM
|
 |
One of THE Original Covers!
Registration Date: Nov 1998
Location: Wallingford, CT USA
Age: 43
|
|
Posts: 1,158
Thanks Given to Others: 22
Thanked 63 Times in 43 Posts
Karma Power: 94
|
|
|
CofC are basically worthless, but I will admit that they have some limited positive effect. It does make a supplier put their reputation on the line, but the same could be said of the Quality of product or service they provide.
Inspection is a nonvalue added process that should be done only when it is necessary. A majority of incoming inspection is waste. The problem I see is that many organizations have a difficult time trying to determine alternate means. Inspection is so widely practiced, the thought of not utilizing it in Quality Planning seems foreign to many. Yet, this is only a detection method, way too late in the process. You would be better off utilizing other process control methods, as noted by someone here in an earlier post.
QS suggests a few methods of approving materials/suppliers for use. Consider these in your organization and create a program around these (and others) which will be less inspection dependent.
Regards,
Kevin
|

20th September 1999, 12:12 PM
|
|
|
|
I agree with Kevin. We can set the system for subcontrator development+subcontractor evaluation and the result could be evaluate for the degree of receiving inspection.
|

20th September 1999, 03:07 PM
|
 |
Registration Date: Sep 1999
Location: Oklahoma
Age: 67
|
|
Posts: 1,437
Thanks Given to Others: 1
Thanked 29 Times in 17 Posts
Karma Power: 90
|
|
|
Element 4.10.2.4 requires that we use one or more of the following methods .....
second or third party ..... with records of acceptable quality performance.
4.2.4.2 Subcontractor PPAP
If the subcontractor is registered and submits the PPAP the first time, all subsequent shipments are "dock to Stock" i.e., no incoming inspection.
Late delivery and quality problems will signal re-evaluation.
I have used this method with a previous registrar with no problems.
|

20th September 1999, 06:35 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
|
|
You're right, Sam. I was mainly thinking of ISO before. QS is:
Quote:
4.10.2.4 – Incoming Product Quality
The supplier’s incoming quality system shall use one or more of the following methods:
1. Receipt and evaluation of statistical data by the supplier
2. Receiving inspection and/or testing (e.g., sampling based on performance)
3. Second or third party assessments or audits of subcontractor sites, when coupled with records of acceptable quality performance
4. Part evaluation by accredited laboratories
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|