AS9100C - Do Quality personnel have to perform the In-Process and Final Inspections?

[hoosiermissb]

Looking for specific clause to clarify whether or not we can use Production personnel to verify/inspect their own work?

Currently we have a separate QA Dept. doing In-Process and Final Inspections- but with the company leaning more towards LEAN and CI- we are considering taking a specific Production area and merging the In-Process inspection step that normally occurs right after that stage as one dept.- therefore the would assume the responsibility of verifying their own work- some say Inspection isn't considered Value Added...etc.... any comments how this could be handled and still meet the requirements of AS9100 Rev.C?

 

[The Specialist]

Re: AS9100C- Do Quality personnel have to perform the In-Process and Final Inspection

I would suggest that IPCs may be carried out by line staff.
However, final process/documentation/product checks should be carried out by qualified QA professionals.

 

[BadgerMan]

Re: AS9100C- Do Quality personnel have to perform the In-Process and Final Inspection

I am not aware of any requirement that in-process or final inspections/tests be carried out by an independent entity (such as QA personnel). We have operated that way for years with production techinicians inspecting their own and each other's work. However, we have a very thorough and well documented process for training (initial and recurrent) and certifying our inspection stamp holders.

Concerning the effectiveness of such a system, we could argue that for days!

 

[The Specialist]

Re: AS9100C- Do Quality personnel have to perform the In-Process and Final Inspection

BadgerMan

I agree with your assertion re. requirement.
However, I would be cautious handing over this responsibility to unqualified staff entirely (I appreciate that there is some training involved in your example).

I don’t know; perhaps as I come from Pharma/Biopharm my view is a little warped on this?!

 

[BadgerMan]

Re: AS9100C- Do Quality personnel have to perform the In-Process and Final Inspection

I appreciate that there is some training involved in your example

Our training is significant. It takes over a week of training to earn (and maintain) your certified inspector stamp. We train to the IPC-A-610 standard and we (the QA function) employ two certified trainers.

 

[The Specialist]

Re: AS9100C - Do Quality personnel have to perform the In-Process and Final Inspectio

BadgerMan,

I hope you didn't find me disparaging or critical!

It would seem that you have replaced line-QA with… line-QA!!!

There’s the rub, isn’t it?!

 

[Hodgepodge]

Re: AS9100C - Do Quality personnel have to perform the In-Process and Final Inspectio

There isn’t a requirement for “quality personnel” to perform inspections, in-process, first article, or final. Some company’s don’t have a “quality department”. Hopefully all personnel are “quality” personnel. The AS9100 C requirement that relates to your issue is found in section 6.2.1, “Personnel performing work affecting conformity to product requirements shall be competent on the basis of appropriate education, training, skills and experience.” Section 6.2.2 defines the requirements for competence and determining effectiveness.

If you have the competencies defined for your inspection personnel, have the production personnel trained using the same methods. I think this is always a good idea. The more a person knows about what they are doing, the more they understand “the relevance and importance of their activities and how they contribute to the achievement of the quality objectives,” (6.2.2 d).​

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: AS9100C - Do Quality personnel have to perform the In-Process and Final Inspectio

Looking for specific clause to clarify whether or not we can use Production personnel to verify/inspect their own work?

This is one of those "cultural" legacy issues still in existence in the aerospace and defense world. As most of us know, during World War II, many "unqualified" people were brought in assembly lines to support the production of weapons systems, airplanes, etc. Because of that, many "policing" approaches to quality were instituted, since non-conforming products obviously would have their reliability compromised. The practice of having an "army" of inspectors checking the quality of products took hold, and decades later, we still have organizations that believe operators should have no ownership about the quality of the products they make. The "quality person" is responsible for "ensuring" only good products go through. As we all know, quality can NOT be inspected into the product. As mentioned by the OP, the fact of having an independent QC function adds cost to the operation, in addition to maintaining the wrong message that quality is not the responsibility of the people involved with the product realization processes.

The ONLY sustainable way for organizations is to make EVERYONE involved with the product feel ownership for product conformity. Actually, the (stretch) goal should be for us to have production processes so robust that we could skip inspection altogether.

 

[Big Jim]

Re: AS9100C - Do Quality personnel have to perform the In-Process and Final Inspectio

The old saying here is that you can't inspect quality into a product.

What it really boils down to is that you would be well served to have the quality department (if you choose to have one) focus on finding why things fail inspections and figuring out how to prevent them from failing.

This also speaks to the concept of quality assurance rather than quality control.

No matter who performs the inspections, their training and attitude is absolutely critical. Quality is everyone's responsibility, not just the inspectors. Everyone has the responsibility to ensure that nonconforming product does not go out the door.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: AS9100C - Do Quality personnel have to perform the In-Process and Final Inspectio

Everyone has the responsibility to ensure that nonconforming product does not go out the door.

That still promotes detection rather than prevention. I would hope that the mind set should be, instead, that everyone has the responsibility to ensure that nonconforming product does not exist. It does not get sold wrong, planned wrong, designed wrong, manufactured wrong, etc...

The cliche of do it right, first time, every time applies to sales, engineering, purchasing, management, etc....even though the banner is only hung on the shop floor.