The Elsmar Cove Forum and Site Map The Elsmar Cove Wiki More Free Files The Elsmar Cove Forums Discussion Thread Index Post Attachments Listing Failure Modes Services and Solutions to Problems Elsmar cove Forums Main Page Elsmar Cove Home Page

Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > Common Quality Assurance Processes and Tools > Inspection and Test, Sampling and Related Topics


The Elsmar Cove Forum SideBar!
Monitor the Forum
Monitor New Forum Posts
New Threads Feeds
RSS FeedRSS Feed
Sponsor Link










$ Contributor Forum Access
Courtesy Quick Links

Links that Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge:


Howard's International Quality Services

Atul's Symphony Technologies

Dave Scott's Scott Quality Solutions

Praxiom Research Group


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


All the Important Standards and Related Web Sites in the World
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  #1  
Old 9th March 2004, 09:58 AM
Douglas E. Purdy Douglas E. Purdy is offline
Courtesy Access

Registration Date: Apr 2002
Location: Lombard, IL
 
Posts: 508
Thanks Given to Others: 10
Thanked 41 Times in 24 Posts
Karma Power: 58
Douglas E. Purdy has disabled his/her Karma.
Default Inspection & Test System

I am in a quandary over the Inspection & Test System, which leads to concerns with the control of nonconforming product. But first the Inspection & Test System - The evidence of conformity throughout In-Process and Final Inspection is primarily "acceptance" or "OK." The only evidence of conformity that gives the actual measurements is in Receiving Inspection, some set-up verifications (primarily involving CNC operations), and when the customer requires an Inspection Piece Report. I feel uneasy about this system, but this is the established system. I would appreciate feedback on if this system is okay and why, or this system needs more evidence of conformity and why.

Thanks,
Doug
Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 9th March 2004, 10:31 AM
Sam's Avatar
Sam Sam is offline

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
Karma: 1020
Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas E. Purdy

I am in a quandary over the Inspection & Test System, which leads to concerns with the control of nonconforming product. But first the Inspection & Test System - The evidence of conformity throughout In-Process and Final Inspection is primarily "acceptance" or "OK." The only evidence of conformity that gives the actual measurements is in Receiving Inspection, some set-up verifications (primarily involving CNC operations), and when the customer requires an Inspection Piece Report. I feel uneasy about this system, but this is the established system. I would appreciate feedback on if this system is okay and why, or this system needs more evidence of conformity and why.

Thanks,
Doug
Doug,
What you are describing is basically the way our mfg. and receiving inspection processes operate. All of our in-process inspection is visual. We do have visual aids and evidence of training. We follow up with product audits each day, which areslso visual.
Receivinfg inspection is where the actual measuring and testing takes place, however, the majority of the product is accepted with visual inspection using samples.

The system is documented on the control plan, work instructions and training records. It's been acceptable through QS,TS2, ISO and Ford Q1 audits with no NCR's. We did have a couple of OFI's.
__________________
Sam Goody
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

  #3  
Old 9th March 2004, 12:34 PM
Mike S. Mike S. is offline
An Early 'Cover'

Registration Date: Mar 2002
Location: East Coast US
 
Posts: 1,773
Thanks Given to Others: 24
Thanked 51 Times in 39 Posts
Karma Power: 103
Karma: 1849
Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas E. Purdy

The evidence of conformity throughout In-Process and Final Inspection is primarily "acceptance" or "OK."

I would appreciate feedback on if this system is okay and why, or this system needs more evidence of conformity and why.

Thanks,
Doug
Well, I see no clear violation of 8.2.4. I assume someone measures the product and says "okay" or "bad" and generates a record to that effect, but there are no quantitative data shown. So long at this matches their procedures and there is no evidence of serious problems such as customer returns related to poor testing, I'd say it is okay, but maybe not how I'd do it. JMO.
__________________
Mike S. ("Gun Nut")
And they ask me why I drink....
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10th March 2004, 09:59 AM
Douglas E. Purdy Douglas E. Purdy is offline
Courtesy Access

Registration Date: Apr 2002
Location: Lombard, IL
 
Posts: 508
Thanks Given to Others: 10
Thanked 41 Times in 24 Posts
Karma Power: 58
Douglas E. Purdy has disabled his/her Karma.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam

Doug,
What you are describing is basically the way our mfg. and receiving inspection processes operate. All of our in-process inspection is visual.
Sam,

Unlike your system, our In-Process and Final Inspections are not just visual but involves a number of dimensional characteristics. Would that make a difference to you in your resonse to the initial inquiry?

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10th March 2004, 10:17 AM
Sam's Avatar
Sam Sam is offline

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
Karma: 1020
Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.
Default

Doug,
Only to say that, if you have dimensional characteristics you cannot use the term "accept/reject" or any other attribute term. You would need to document the measured result. Also with variables data comes the need for in-process SPC.
So, yes, I wouild also be concerned with the present status of the process.
__________________
Sam Goody
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10th March 2004, 10:49 AM
Mike S. Mike S. is offline
An Early 'Cover'

Registration Date: Mar 2002
Location: East Coast US
 
Posts: 1,773
Thanks Given to Others: 24
Thanked 51 Times in 39 Posts
Karma Power: 103
Karma: 1849
Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam

Doug,
Only to say that, if you have dimensional characteristics you cannot use the term "accept/reject" or any other attribute term. You would need to document the measured result. Also with variables data comes the need for in-process SPC.
So, yes, I wouild also be concerned with the present status of the process.
Sam,

Please tell me where these requirements are stated. Where does it say I need to document the measured result for variables data and that I must have in-process SPC for it? I don't see it in ISO 9001. Maybe it is a TS or QS thing?
__________________
Mike S. ("Gun Nut")
And they ask me why I drink....
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10th March 2004, 10:58 AM
Sam's Avatar
Sam Sam is offline

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
Karma: 1020
Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Sam is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike S.

Sam,

Please tell me where these requirements are stated. Where does it say I need to document the measured result for variables data and that I must have in-process SPC for it? I don't see it in ISO 9001. Maybe it is a TS or QS thing?
True. It comes from TS/APQP/PPAP/Customer Specific Requirement documents. However, the requirement should also be "flowed" down from a tier I to the tier II who may only be ISO 9001.
__________________
Sam Goody
Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > Common Quality Assurance Processes and Tools > Inspection and Test, Sampling and Related Topics

Bookmarks


Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors and 1 Unregistered Guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

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 Jump

Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
Test records shall show actual test results data - 8.2.4.1 Inspection documentation clara AS9100 Aerospace Standard and Requirements 4 26th January 2007 12:37 PM
How to Provide Evidence of Product Conformity during Manufacture? chum84 ISO 9001 - Quality Management Systems Standard 10 10th August 2006 03:15 AM
Evidence of Product Conformity Steven Truchon ISO/TS 16949 - International Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1 15th October 2004 03:45 PM
Inspection & Test System for Distribution Centers Douglas E. Purdy Inspection and Test, Sampling and Related Topics 4 2nd July 2004 09:45 AM
Need 3 appraisers for GR&R of the automatic test measurements? Calvin Chen Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 3 20th December 2003 09:49 AM



The time now is 01:28 AM. All times are GMT -4.
The time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.



   

All Y'All Come Back Now, Y' Hear?

Made With A Mac! FreeBSD OS Powered by Apache!
Using php4 Forums provided and maintained by Marc Smith Database by MySQL

FAIR USE and CORRECTNESS NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe herein constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. In addition, I do not guarantee the correctness of the content. The risk of using content from the Elsmar Cove web site and forums remains with the user/visitor.

Responsibility Statement: Each person is responsible for anything they post in the Elsmar Cove forum. Neither I, Marc Timothy Smith, nor any of the forum Moderators, are responsible for the content of posts people make. Liability for post content resides with the poster as does interpretation and/or acceptance and/or use of advice by the reader.

Complaints: If you have a complaint with a post in a forum discussion thread, including Content in general, fighting, flaming, copyright infringement, defamation and/or 'slander', please use the 'Report This Post Report This Post Button button which appears at the top of every post in every thread.

Site courtesy of:
Marc Timothy Smith - Cayman Business Systems, 8466 Lesourdsville-West Chester Road, West Chester, Ohio 45069-1929 - USA
(513) 341-6272

To contact me, click the Google Voice link below, enter Your Name and Your Phone Number and Google will ring your phone and connect you for free!

The Elsmar Cove Web Site is *CopyFree*
no new posts