Tips for convincing general labour that 100% inspection not required

S

somerqc

Help.

I am trying to convince/teach the lead hands of the assembly areas that sample inspection can be equal to (and possibly more) accurate than 100% inspection.

I have been able to easily convince management that 100% inspection is NOT economical, but, the $$$$ argument does not work with the people on the floor.

I am also working to change a culture that spends as much time inspecting a $5 part as a $5000 part :mad: and think it is normal!!!! :eek: The culture change is occurring slowly, but surely.

Does anyone have any other tips besides the following for convincing them before using the hammer (which I truly HATE using!)?

1. Accuracy vs time (i.e. almost 100% accurate for 10-15% of the time)
2. Efficiency (i.e. don't need to use as many people)
3. Less wear and tear on them (i.e. inspecting 80 pcs is easier than 1000 pcs)

Hoping to not use the :whip:
 
P

pabloquintana

I would suggest to use the Cost of Quality chart from Deming. You can show that perfection is expensive and that there is a optimum point where total quality costs are lower.

Remember

Quality Costs = Prevention + APPRAISAL + Internal Failures + External Failures

They better reduce APPRAISAL and increase Prevention through Quality Assurance and not Quality Control.

If you need further explanation I'm available through email.

Pablo
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
You say the culture change is occurring slowly but surely. That is good news, the people apparently can grasp the idea of their time's value.

Now I want to know why they feel it is necessary to inspect each part with the same attention.

Do they simply not understand the value of their time as opposed to the product's value? Or,
  • If you asked them, would they volunteer an awareness of the costs of failure down the line, such as with automotive recalls? (Here, see a list of such recalls, mostly due to small parts and consider the relative expense to fix the problems--or worse, the potential expense if they are not fixed: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/09/07/142309.html) In other words, do they take their jobs so seriously that they are loathe to allow even a small error to slip by them?
  • Do your personnel take great pride in their work but feel the process is unreliable--that they must look at every part because they just can't believe reducing inspection is safe to do?
  • Do your personnel fear what will happen if bad parts get by them? If so, are these fears specific (like punishment) or general (the company is not strong enough to withstand failure, so we must make sure it doesn't happen)?
When you truly understand the actual source(s) of the behavior, change will be more manageable. I am concerned that talking them into accepting reduced inspection (if underlying concerns are not being addressed) may impact morale, which also impacts inspection accuracy--even when sampling.

Sampling is typically implemented when a process is in control. Can you show your personnel what it looks like for the process to be in control, so they will feel more comfortable with sampling? Can you make them a large enough part of that process control so they can recognize it and its lapse on a timely basis?

I can't see your people from my desk, so I offer these perspectives out of a sort of devil's advocacy. I do know that people have reasons for their behavior, and it makes sense to approach those reasons so the behavior changes are sincere and don't come at the expense of another problem.
 

Steve Prevette

Deming Disciple
Leader
Super Moderator
One of the best convincers is a relatively inexpensive DVD from Indiana University which puts up a number of visual tasks, and it is surprising how many people miss what happens. The most famous one is a task that asks people to count how many times a basketball is passed, and they completely miss something that afterwards you can't understand how it was missed. I don't want to give away the answer, but if you drop me an email at work ([email protected]) I'll send you the info on the DVD. Disclaimer - I am in no way connected to the people selling the DVD.

The answer that must be pushed is that the process must be made capable enough that inspection becomes unnecessary.
 
S

somerqc

100% inspection not required

Jennifer,

Thank you - you make some excellent points about WHY they are acting like this regarding sample inspection vs. 100% inspection.

In regards to your possibilities:

1. Recall possiblities are few and far between as we manufacture signs, etc. nothing with huge safety concerns compared to a car.

2. It is a definite possiblity that they feel the process is not in control. I am currently developing data to illustrate that the processes are in control (or not - and making corrections where necessary).

3. Punishment feelings are from year's ago when they received an extremely large contract and the quality inspection criteria were extremely tight. Now, they still use this as the basis for everything. It was necessary on that contract as it increased the total sales of the company 50%. In addition, the product made for that client was high profile and extremely valuable compared to the majority of product we manufacture. THIS IS THE AREA OF THE MOST DIFFICULTY. I continuously hear fables of 5-8 years ago when they were making this or that. A $5 part does not have as tight a tolerance as a $5000 part.

4. In additon to 3, they seem to take their job SO seriously that they "loathe" letting one reject get by them. Unfortunately, this is causing us to not be competitive in pricing of our products. (YES, this has caused us to lose some clients).

Any other suggestions?
 

Al Rosen

Leader
Super Moderator
somerqc said:
4. In additon to 3, they seem to take their job SO seriously that they "loathe" letting one reject get by them. Unfortunately, this is causing us to not be competitive in pricing of our products. (YES, this has caused us to lose some clients).

Any other suggestions?
:2cents:Why should one reject get by to the customer? Work on the process to prevent/eliminate the reject.
 
S

somerqc

I would never purposely create a system or allow a system to exist that I knowingly allows rejects to the customer. The issue is related to one thing - customer requirements.

If the customer requirements stipulate that they will accept certain things (thereby, creating a quasi-tolerance), why should we be inspecting to an extent where we are internally rejecting product that the customer will accept?

I regularly accept 25-40% of the product that is rejected from the manufacturing process because of difference between the customers requirements and our arbritary requirements that are usually much tighter than necessary. Although I generally deal with cosmetic issues, this is akin to applying airplane/automotive tolerances to parts for a plastic model.

I have no problem with in-process inspection of one's work (in fact, when dealing with cosmetic issues, I prefer that each person treats the next person as their customer), the problem comes when we are spending time inspecting for things that either don't exist or the customer accepts based on their own internal requirements. This reduces production rates unnecessarily and thereby increasing our costs.

Btw, we are a custom house; therefore, customer requirements are our bread and butter. There isn't a "market standard" in our case. Each customer wants something different for a different application with different requirements. The driving force lately has been price. With everyone looking to save money, the more efficient and cost effective we can become the more likely we are to flourish in today's market.

BOTTOM LINE - I need suggestions on how to teach the personnel that it isn't always necessary to apply Lexus tolerances to a tricycle, especially if the customer and/or sales rep has worked with us to determine what the acceptable tolerances are.

:thanks:
 

Steve Prevette

Deming Disciple
Leader
Super Moderator
somerqc said:
BOTTOM LINE - I need suggestions on how to teach the personnel that it isn't always necessary to apply Lexus tolerances to a tricycle, especially if the customer and/or sales rep has worked with us to determine what the acceptable tolerances are.

A common visualization that Dr. Deming used was the task to "Clean the table". If the "table" is a workdesk, it is remove the clutter and organize it. If the "table" is the dining room table, that implies a different standard - in addition, wipe it down with a dishrag. If the "table" is a hospital operating room table, that implies even further additional criteria, such as antiseptics.

Knowledge of what your customer uses the item for is so important. Also, the topic of operational definitions, such as what we mean by "clean".
 
Top Bottom