When preventative action is prohibited by cost in 8D problem solving
- Thread starter ginarr
- Start date
If you read the whole thread - Where are the rules for when a repeat minor nonconformance becomes a major? - In a few posts you might get some "food for thought".
There are times when it is too expensive to implement a secure/dependable/100% "fix". What you'll hear is if you know you are going to, for example, product defectives from time to time, you have to shift your focus to how you will prevent "escape" of defectives which will end up at your customer(s). It is also important to remember - Zero Defects is more applicable to what a company ships than to what they actually produce. Very, very few processes are truly 100% "defect free". In manufacturing, think scrap.
While management is often "cheap", there are times where they really can not afford to do something for a variety of reasons.
There are times when it is too expensive to implement a secure/dependable/100% "fix". What you'll hear is if you know you are going to, for example, product defectives from time to time, you have to shift your focus to how you will prevent "escape" of defectives which will end up at your customer(s). It is also important to remember - Zero Defects is more applicable to what a company ships than to what they actually produce. Very, very few processes are truly 100% "defect free". In manufacturing, think scrap.
While management is often "cheap", there are times where they really can not afford to do something for a variety of reasons.
Correct. In many "zero defect" industries a significant investment is made in 100% automated inspection systems.
And sometimes in <100% automated inspection systems.
Randy
Super Moderator
The answer may be relevant to the end result/risk of not taking spending the money....If something were to occur that resulted in serious injury or death of the end user and this was known, preventable and discoverable where would the greater cost lie? Ever hear of the Pinto gas tank or Toyota gas pedals? Preventive actions for those was chump change compared to the end results.... How about the Challenger or Columbia? Recognized potential problems without preventive actions equaled what?
Very good points @Randy - For the other extreme: Internal Corrective Action Request because of an Escape to Customer (Customer Complaint)
Item: Decorative Covering, Pressed Aluminum Alloy
The above is from a project I was involved in a number of years ago. Well, as much as I remember off hand.
Good discussion. @ginarr did not provide specifics so the discussion is generic.
Item: Decorative Covering, Pressed Aluminum Alloy
- Operation: Deep Draw Sheet Metal Press Sheet Aluminum Alloy (I forget what alloy it was)
- Problem: Cracking within a specific, defined, small area (always the same place)
- Internal Effects: High Scrap Rate (>30%)
- Escape to Customer Effect: Cosmetic (Customer Dissatisfaction)
- Failure Risk to Humans: None
- Failure Risk to Vehicle: Cosmetic (Customer Dissatisfaction)
- Equipment Cost to Significantly Reduce Scrap: ~US$450,000 (Change from Single Draw to 3 Progressive Draw Dies and Presses)
- Scrap Cost: <US$25,000 per year (After Reselling Known Pure Alloy for Recycling)
- Inspection Costs: <US$20,000 per year
- Contract Duration: 2 Years
- Control to Prevent Escape: Manual Visual Inspection by Press Operator
- Formal Process FMEA: Yes, at First Contract Review
- Cause: High Scrap was Predicted by Computer Modeling but but Customer Refused to Pay for the Cost of Extra Dies and Operations. Contract Accepted "As Is" and Priced at a Good Profit Point for the Company.
- Reality Factor: 100% Inspection by Operator will Never be Achieved
- Zero Defects Escape Elimination: Automated X-Ray
- Material Change Potential: None (Alcoa could not provide an alloy which would draw that deep in a Single Draw)
The above is from a project I was involved in a number of years ago. Well, as much as I remember off hand.
Good discussion. @ginarr did not provide specifics so the discussion is generic.
Perhaps the decorative covering thing was an obvious case of overkill, making it sort of easier for the Management to decide;
Many a time, in my experience, the improvement proposals do not have enough backing with Breakeven analysis data;
Quality professionals (by and large I think) don't have "Financial Sense" to sell the proposal;
Some time back, I was desperate to develop my own Financial Sense and I stumbled upon this book - "How to talk Finance by Ted Wainman";
I read it and re-read it; It has a compelling stuff for Engineers like me;
Many a time, in my experience, the improvement proposals do not have enough backing with Breakeven analysis data;
Quality professionals (by and large I think) don't have "Financial Sense" to sell the proposal;
Some time back, I was desperate to develop my own Financial Sense and I stumbled upon this book - "How to talk Finance by Ted Wainman";
I read it and re-read it; It has a compelling stuff for Engineers like me;
and many times those "defects" that are deemed "too expensive to implement permanent CA", are pretty low occurrence rate...generally the "low hanging fruit" are easy to sell....its the "tail of the dragon", defects that really neccesitate a well thought/planned/cost effective plan to properly sell it to the $$ keepers
Similar threads
