Outsourcing Quality Functions within the company

Claes Gefvenberg said:

Er... The definition of "value added" varies, but I have a feeling none of us would be here if we added no value? I will answer in terms of not being in the "production hands-on" category.

Anyway: We are eight people in the Quality/Environment dep (including three people in the final inspection/lab, and we also do some jobs that are not linked to the traditional QA role. I would say three people directly involved in QA.

There is also the fact that our QA dep. used to be quite big, before we "outsourced" most of our functions to the respective process owners years ago, and retained only the "staff functions". This makes it a bit iffy to come up with a definitive count, but a rough estimate would be five to seven people directly involved in QA (not counting inspectors). With 380 people working here, I would say that we end up with a 1/65 ratio, but as I've said it's a matter of definition.

Counting all inspectors would for instance give us a 1/12 ratio...

/Claes

Click to expand...

I like the concept of "outsourcing" activity and responsibility of many quality functions to the production folks who "own" the processes involved. We did this in a high-tech machining outfit. The remaining quality personnel became

1. designers of inspection processes in conjunction with cross-functional team (often including end customer as well as production folk) when designing the Control Plan for a particular product
2. trainers of all personnel on proper use and care of inspection instruments
3. "court of last resort" on sticky quality questions
4. supplier of a standing member of the Material Review Board
5. liaison with outside customers on questions of quality

My question, Claes, is: "WHO initiated the idea in your organization? What was the trigger to get folks thinking of changing from the deadly routine of "Kwality Kops" to integrating quality procedures with the process owners?"

In our case, it was a realization that Deming was right, "prevention is better than detection." We (top management) decided we wanted to do the right thing the first time, every time. We just simply eliminated the "gotcha" aspect of quality inspection systems and enlisted everyone's help in looking for solutions, not scapegoats.

Copied from Number of Quality Personnel - How many quality personnel does your company employ? , because I found Wes' question interesting enough to warrant a thread of its own:

Wes Bucey said:

My question, Claes, is: "WHO initiated the idea in your organization? What was the trigger to get folks thinking of changing from the deadly routine of "Kwality Kops" to integrating quality procedures with the process owners?"

Click to expand...

The situation was that we knew our organization was "oldfashioned", and when the time for reorganization came we all leapt for it.

I guess we were ripe, so to speak. I do not remember where the idea came from, but as I recall it, all involved parties were agreed from the outset: "Put people where they make most good and never mind what has been".

What about the rest of you? Any similar experiences?

/Claes

Re: Outsorcing quality functions within the company

I wasn't here when it happened but my plant did the same thing when a new corporation came in and took over the plant about 6 years ago. I think it is a great idea and it definately helps with the ownership of the process but it has it's backslides as well. There were some cases where our SPC outputs lead management to operators with "magical parts."

We inspect five parts an hour on high speed processes for our SPC and there have been a few cases where the operator just kept five "magic parts" he knew were in spec back and inspected the same five parts every hour. Needless to say, the data had an interesting normal curve. I'm pretty sure these guys were fired.

The self ownership of the process inspection is a great idea but there can be some conflict of interest when finding a bad part causes the operator to do more work. When tooling wears down and parts go out of spec the operators have to change out the tooling. Obviously they are motivated to not make bad parts and they are getting direct feedback from their process at all times but when a process is going bad there is a definate temptation for the operator to ignore the problems.

I think self ownership of inspections necessitates error proofing of gauges and that's where my company has failed some what. If a gauge can be read more than one way (pretty common with small hand held measuring equipment), an operator running his/her own inspections will most certainly read the gauge the way that keeps them in spec so that they don't have to make changes to the process. Gauge R&R's and well written procedures are a must.

I still think the benefits of doing inspections on the spot by the operator outweigh the problems created. Any company making the switch needs to realize the risks involved and take precautions. Just remember the human factor to any inspection.

Claes Gefvenberg said:

Copied from Number of Quality Personnel - How many quality personnel does your company employ? , because I found Wes' question interesting enough to warrant a thread of its own: The situation was that we knew our organization was "oldfashioned", and when the time for reorganization came we all leapt for it.

I guess we were ripe, so to speak. I do not remember where the idea came from, but as I recall it, all involved parties were agreed from the outset: "Put people where they make most good and never mind what has been".

What about the rest of you? Any similar experiences?

/Claes

Click to expand...

My experience was from the 80's. We changed from a "Piece-work" system to self directed team-based system as a Tier 1 supplier to GM (well at least 95%). The concept of multi-skilled team member responsible for everything in the cell- quality, productivity, safety, basic PM, material transactions, etc. became our way of life, reinforced by training in all of the above. Quality was highly emphasized through drilling on fit, form, and function. Visual sample boards with min / max examples were used for critical criteria. QA "tested" each team member on product inspection, and Certified the operator as qualified to audit.

And I would as a Line Supervisor (Facilitator) monthly with QA, pick a random skid for audit by myself and QA that would roll up into a rating score for Quality. Field quality issues would be highlighted by a Quality Alert (initiated by QA) posting within the team that gave the details of the issue and the habitual containment actions for our system. Weekly team meetings were structured with a rotating member reporting as the "Quality Rep." who would report the metrics and initiate discussions regarding intra-team quality issues.

Looking back now, the best time of my working life...a well thought-out system supported with training and resources to acheive the system objectives. What a concept! I think it's mostly gone now from my old company.

I suppose I am a living example of "outsourcing" of quality functions. I actually work in the Safety and Health department, but do all of the trending and statistical analysis of QA's data. Traditional CQE stuff.

There wasn't really a conscious decision by QA to "outsource", but since I was providing over the years better analysis and predictions than the folks within QA that were attempting to make charts, the function slowly gravitated through individual work requests to me. For a few years, QA provided a charge code for me to charge back for work done, but since both QA and S&H are "overhead" funded, there was considerable "tax" applied to those hours, and a gentleman's agreement was reached between QA and S&H that I would do whatever work they needed as long as it did not interfere with my S&H work.

This made a lot of sense, because there really wasn't enough work in QA or S&H by themselves to support a full time statistician. Yes, there have occasionally been political battles over the years between QA and S&H as to who should officially "control" me, but so far S&H has maintained its hold on me.

We "outsourced" the functions to Production...They fired the Quality director and then had the quality group report into the MFG Director. The problems we encountered were:
1. The MFG Director had no formal quality training, quality became secondary to the number of items shipped.
2. There was no group to speak for the customer, and no one dare challenge the boss.
3. Quality inspection were cut as they "slowed down" the line, there was no other process to bolster quality after final inspection got cut.
4. Returns were then blamed on the group instead of the Production Director owning quality

In any case the quality of the product got worse, much worse. The Deming philosophy works for companies that are mature and whose management and personnel have discipline, but those companies are few and far between.
I remember being told from my old quality manager that “we are here to work ourselves out of a job”, we didn’t even need to do that! So it was a bitter sweet victory when this happened : http://news.com.com/PCs+plagued+by+bad+capacitors/2100-1041_3-5942647.html they laid off the engineer and his group that did all motherboard traces….prevention is better than detection…

Re: Outsorcing quality functions within the company

duecesevenOS said:

I wasn't here when it happened but my plant did the same thing when a new corporation came in and took over the plant about 6 years ago. I think it is a great idea and it definately helps with the ownership of the process but it has it's backslides as well. There were some cases where our SPC outputs lead management to operators with "magical parts."

We inspect five parts an hour on high speed processes for our SPC and there have been a few cases where the operator just kept five "magic parts" he knew were in spec back and inspected the same five parts every hour. Needless to say, the data had an interesting normal curve. I'm pretty sure these guys were fired.

The self ownership of the process inspection is a great idea but there can be some conflict of interest when finding a bad part causes the operator to do more work. When tooling wears down and parts go out of spec the operators have to change out the tooling. Obviously they are motivated to not make bad parts and they are getting direct feedback from their process at all times but when a process is going bad there is a definate temptation for the operator to ignore the problems.

I think self ownership of inspections necessitates error proofing of gauges and that's where my company has failed some what. If a gauge can be read more than one way (pretty common with small hand held measuring equipment), an operator running his/her own inspections will most certainly read the gauge the way that keeps them in spec so that they don't have to make changes to the process. Gauge R&R's and well written procedures are a must.

I still think the benefits of doing inspections on the spot by the operator outweigh the problems created. Any company making the switch needs to realize the risks involved and take precautions. Just remember the human factor to any inspection.

Click to expand...

"Magic parts" are never a problem with a simple addition to the process. Tag and set aside the five samples from each hour with the marked inspection sheet (I presume only a few critical characteristics are measured) to the end of the shift for possible review and comparison if an out of control event occurs.

Critical to our process was the retention of quality-trained personnel as teachers and "court of last resort" in dealing with suppliers and customers on planning for an issue-free production before the first chip of metal was cut (every effort expended to PREVENT quality issues rather than react to them.)

Let me throw in perhaps a different perspective.....

In my travels I have seen a greater progression of (to borrow the CNN term) "imbedding" quality as a philosophy and also quality personnel (depending often on size of organization) into the operational groups. In those cases QA personnel take on more of a support and consulting role.

Various other things may/may not be included depending on the organization.

For most of the organizations I have seen take that route, it has been positive.

Hershal

Re: Outsorcing quality functions within the company

Wes Bucey said:

"Magic parts" are never a problem with a simple addition to the process. Tag and set aside the five samples from each hour with the marked inspection sheet (I preume only a few critical characteristics are measured) to the end of the shift for possible review and comparison if an out of control event occurs.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on everything except for the "simple" part. I have 40 presses in my area running at least 20 hours a day. 5 parts X 40 presses X 20 inspections = 4000 parts per day. And how long do you hold them? My process includes a 4 day drying time after assembly so critical defects may not be realized until 5-7 days after fabrication. 4000 parts per day X 7 days = 28,000 parts.

Plant wide we probably have at least 600 presses that get specific sampling done every hour. Keeping historical sampling of parts is a logistical nightmare for even one day. Everything gets pretty complicated when you are making over 6,000,000 fully assembled finished products a day (my company makes ammunition for the armed forces).

I don't think that you can really avoid something like "magic parts" unless it's in your hiring practices. The truth is a quality assurance inspector could have done the exact same thing. If you have an employee who does not do his/her job, you are going to have quality issues. Quality isn't created in a vacuum, people linchpin the system.

Re: Outsorcing quality functions within the company

duecesevenOS said:

If you have an employee who does not do his/her job, you are going to have quality issues. Quality isn't created in a vacuum, people linchpin the system.

Click to expand...

I think it's interesting to note that many--if not most--of the job shops I've been associated with engage in prevarication with customers on a regular basis. In fact, it's often considered a part of the culture. From sales reps who lie about capability and capacity in order to make the sale, to fudged inspection reports, to making "business decisions" that result in knowingly shipping nonconforming product, job shop management often actively encourages employees to be dishonest. In cases like that, it's little wonder that a machine operator might think that dishonesty is the best policy.