E
Me too!
My sentiments exactly! As an Inspector-Full Time for 14 years, and still am occasionally, I find the assumption that Inspectors are generally prone to not performing as they should, crap! I wonder if the great master Juran ever spent time doing this type of work. Maybe when this study was done, he was standing behind the Inspectors, no doubt looking down on them, with his clipboard pacing back and forth.
)
When I had an assignment, it made no difference to me if it was looked at prior to my inspection. Most serious Inspectors assume that there is something not right and will not let it go until they are completely satisfied that it meets all the requirements. We are a paranoid group. I have been following this thread and this 80-20 rule, another buzz word I might add, that is used for just about anything these days. Not wanting to ruffle anyone's feathers, nor offend the Juran aficionados, I was waiting to see a post that questioned what appears to be acceptance by the majority that Inspectors are lazy, or worst yet, incompetent. Thanks for a breath of fresh air. Just because it's printed and preached doesn't always make it so!
Originally posted by D.Scott
I sure don't want to argue with the anybody on this issue, especially Juran. IMHO I think the "100% inspection is only 80% effective" statement is a cop out used way too much to justify a poor inspection process.
I am not a statistician but the logic that the chance of a second inspector finding a single defect would be lower than the first inspector doesn't seem to make sense. The chance of finding the defect would INCREASE for the entire process (using mechanical inspection to eliminate the "he thought - she thought" sceanario).
Dave
I sure don't want to argue with the anybody on this issue, especially Juran. IMHO I think the "100% inspection is only 80% effective" statement is a cop out used way too much to justify a poor inspection process.
I am not a statistician but the logic that the chance of a second inspector finding a single defect would be lower than the first inspector doesn't seem to make sense. The chance of finding the defect would INCREASE for the entire process (using mechanical inspection to eliminate the "he thought - she thought" sceanario).
Dave
When I had an assignment, it made no difference to me if it was looked at prior to my inspection. Most serious Inspectors assume that there is something not right and will not let it go until they are completely satisfied that it meets all the requirements. We are a paranoid group. I have been following this thread and this 80-20 rule, another buzz word I might add, that is used for just about anything these days. Not wanting to ruffle anyone's feathers, nor offend the Juran aficionados, I was waiting to see a post that questioned what appears to be acceptance by the majority that Inspectors are lazy, or worst yet, incompetent. Thanks for a breath of fresh air. Just because it's printed and preached doesn't always make it so!
