Occurance of Non-Conformance, MRB (Material Review Board) and Record keeping

[Wes Bucey]

Or is it being handled by the upscale and untouchable MRB?
Personally, I hate committees & meetings but they are a necessary evil. However, I have always felt that the closer to the event you can get, the better the correction effort becomes. Plus you get ownership and buy in from the operators. Let them work with the product or process engineer in a hands on environment and both will learn valuble lessons.

It is true. There are some clueless MRBs. There are also some "elite" MRBs who have never been on a shop floor.

As I pointed out in my original post,
MRB members are multi-disciplinary (engineering, operations, purchasing, sales, management, Quality) - a quorum is necessary for MRB to proceed.

I have battled my entire career against the image of Quality function being equated with police function. Our MRBs have only minority representation by Quality (after all, they are one of the functions being examined by the MRB - i. e. "was the inspection done correctly?")

Just because there are incompetent MRBs does not negate the idea of an MRB function. Rather, the organization should look for continual improvement, especially on the MRB function.

 

[qualitygoddess - 2010]

Using an Inspector to Get Improvement

Sometimes the answer to the problem is creating a "cool" name for a function, so people in Mfg think this is something really cutting edge. Why not let the propsed inspector be a "product and process auditor"? I once called them Customer Advocate Auditors (y'know -- be the customers eyes and ears in the factory, advocating for the customer).

The job of this person was to do inspection, but more importantly, discover the root causes through analysis of the nonconforming product that was found. We used the standard qc tools for root cause, corrective actions, etc. Pareto charts were our friends. This led us to implement PFMEA (process failure modes effects analysis) and other tools for doing a better job with process control. It eventually led to the Mfg Manager agreeing that SPC was a GOOD tool, and then we did that, too.

Remember, you cannot just put any inspector in that audit position. You need someone with the right skills set.

Good luck.

 

[Craig H.]

But I have seen these used where a two decimal point number must have a tolerance of +/- 0.010" when the actual product functions quite well at +/-0.250"!

So my question becomes, is this a case of overdesign and how rampant is it in the various industries?

Jim:

I believe that this is part of the point of Taguchi's loss function - there is a cost associated with being "too good". But, when testing variation and real world application are taken into account (not to mention safety factors) how do we know when we really are "too good"? (rhetorical question, BTW).

In the cutters case discussed here: if a cutter failed on the first try, would a second one be available? If so, then maybe the spec should be examined. When faced with the prospect of a lot lower price, a case might be made with customers that the less expensive route is the best.

As far as specs go, let's think about computers. There are some whiz-bang lightning fast models out there, with fast processors, tons of RAM, and a relatively high price tag. Among many people I know, though, the $499 (and less in some cases) computers are what they are interested in - they just want email and internet access. Excel scares them. So ( and those familiar with Crosby will recognize this) for them the $499 computer meets their requirements and is therefore a quality computer. However, if they want to play the latest games, then the $499 box will just not do.

'scuse the ramble, please.

Craig H.

 

[Jim Howe]

Jim:

In the cutters case discussed here: if a cutter failed on the first try, would a second one be available? If so, then maybe the spec should be examined. When faced with the prospect of a lot lower price, a case might be made with customers that the less expensive route is the best.


Craig H.

You can ramble all you wish. Some of it actually made sense to me. But to answer your question if the mine was deployed it was under water, one shot is all you get.
PS. The CAPTOR mine was a torpedo tube containing a torpedo and listning devices that was deployed in the harbors, anchored to the bottom. It listened for the enemy ship and would launch torpedo (MK46) when enemy ship was heard.

 

[Al Rosen]

PS. The CAPTOR mine was a torpedo tube containing a torpedo and listning devices that was deployed in the harbors, anchored to the bottom. It listened for the enemy ship and would launch torpedo (MK46) when enemy ship was heard.

Hopefully not while your trying to cut it loose.

 

[Craig H.]

You can ramble all you wish. Some of it actually made sense to me. But to answer your question if the mine was deployed it was under water, one shot is all you get.
PS. The CAPTOR mine was a torpedo tube containing a torpedo and listning devices that was deployed in the harbors, anchored to the bottom. It listened for the enemy ship and would launch torpedo (MK46) when enemy ship was heard.

Um, I'll take the device that is IN spec, thank you.

As I work with mines that are big holes in the ground (without an explosion), the other type did not come to mind.

Craig

 

[Wes Bucey]

First off, I would like to say thank you for all of your responses. I am glad to see that there is a fair variety of different view points in this group because it allows me to evaluate my position more objectively.
It was also helpful to see some feedback on how I have projected my position i.e.

To summarize some of the things that I am taking away from this thread:

The manufacturing process must be improved to "fix" the problem

Analysis based on real data must be used to find the biggest opportunities for improvement.

The manufacturing process must be improved to "fix" problem.

The efforts for improvement must be collateral and include everyone.

I thought that becoming more active in this forum would help me analize situations more thoroughly ...... and I am already reaping the bennefits. -Techrat

OK, Techrat. Bring us up to date. Have you been able to implement any of the tips from Covers in this thread or the other one you started? Part of our personal "evaluation" in our continual improvement program is to learn whether the advice or suggestions we write have any value for the intended market.

 

[techrat]

Hello All!
I am so glad that Wes has followed up on this thread because it has reminded me that I need to continue to develop solutions for our quality problems. Although I have been following various threads in the cove, I have become complacent in participating and starting new threads. (This was a good reminder of how much I took away from my last posting to the cove)
To answer the question that was posed by Wes;

Have you been able to implement any of the tips from Covers in this thread or the other one you started?

The short answer is Yes! To expand slightly, I have acted on many of the suggestions given in this thread, the process of (quality) recovery is still however in its infancy. I still face many challenges, and expect to involve this resource in the process of overcoming them. I have found the response to be valuable in raw content as well as in the inspirational energy that they provide to me.

Thanks! -Techrat

 

[Jim Howe]

Um, I'll take the device that is IN spec, thank you.

As I work with mines that are big holes in the ground (without an explosion), the other type did not come to mind.

Craig

Craig, my apologies! I never once gave a thought that some one might not know what a CAPTOR mine was. I guess when you work with these things for several years you become complacent and comfortable within the peer group.
I guess the same goes for the term "MRB". I knew immediately what techrat was speaking about and would have made the same mistake there.

Speaking of MRB, I do wish to point out that our MRB investigation was always conducted in teams of two or more people. For all the programs I dealt with (Captor, P-II, DSMAC, F-15, etc.) I always had a design engineer by my side and we always had access to any other discipline (purchasing, planning, etc.) that was necessary. It was exactly as Wes, described it!

But throughout my experience we specifically aimed at eliminating the MRB process. Our inspectors and supervisor were trained to recognize, at the point of nonconformance, how to perform a "pre-liminary disposition" to rework to drawing. They could even call on the MRB to assist in this disposition. If it could not be reworked to drawing then it had to be sent to MRB. MRB could disposition to Repair but only with customer approval.

The years I spent in the MRB process were the most fulfilling of my entire career!

 

[QCALPINE]

Had a recent nonconforming item in our shop. Want to put up annoucement, do some retraining and possibly generate a flyer or notice that includes a picture of the item and some words. Does anybody have an example of a notice they used to communicate a nonconforming item to plant personnel. I have looked for some templates in WORD, but not found anything useful. I think a notice/flyer would be good to increase awareness throughout the plant. Any ideas or suggestions???