AMT TE Implementation Course

[Dan De Yarman]

Make no mistake, this course has already happened. This is not a notification about an upcoming seminar!

Last week (Feb. 16 & 17) I attended a great seminar on how to implement QS-9000 and the Tooling and Equipment Supplement. It was taught by George H. Hummel of Interstate Quality Consultants. The insight into the standard that I learned last week was unparalleled; not to put down what Marc is doing here, this forum is great. (I actually recommended it during the course.) George did a terrific job explaining how the standard is suppose to affect our industry. To actually be able to converse with someone face to face who understands the standard and its applicability as well as George does; it's near priceless . The ability to get your questions answered, not dismissed, by someone who really knows what they are doing is a great learning experience.

Now for those of you who do not know what the AMT is, it is the Association For Manufacturing Technology. It is a group of companies, to which my employer belongs, that share information and ideas, and try to promote our industry. They also tackle issues regarding the standards; i.e. trying to get input into the TE Supplement while it was being written.

The reason I'm posting this subject is not to promote the AMT or Interstate Quality Consultants (even though George would be a great consultant). The reason is to, hopefully, make the people who use this forum aware of the associations and groups your company belongs to. Check them out, see if those groups can be of any service to you. This forum is just one tool within a toolbox that is available to you, use what you have. And when you learn something, please share it with the rest of us.

Sincerely,

Daniel E. De Yarman

 

[Marc]

That being the case, do please treat us to some of the insights you came away with.

By the way, plugging a course you went to or a specific person is perfectly fine. All I complain about is outright spamming.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 24 February 2000).]

 

[Dan De Yarman]

Marc, I believe it would be better for me to address the topics as other people bring them up in the forum. In that manner, I can address the specific issue at hand and hopefully stay focused. However, I will leave a little something here.


For those implementing a Quality Management System, change your point of view! This is a major undertaking, and should be treated in the same manner that you treat an order (or in my company "project"). Resources need to be committed up front and scheduled dates should be adhered to; just like a normal order.

Look at QS, ISO, whatever quality system your implementing, as a Business Management System, not just a Quality Management System. There are so many tools and philosophies in QS-TE that, if you aren't using them already, can be very beneficial to your company.

Take a step back and see where you company can benefit from a quality system and then attack those areas. This will allow you to show upper management the improvement (cost savings) that can be achieved. Unfortunately my company jumped before it looked. But now we are aware that after registration, we need to sit down and take a hard look at what we can get out of this quality system. The sooner your company does this, the less catch-up and reworking of the system you will have to do.


That is all I have for now. Hopefully, I will be able to address more issues as I see them posted in this T&E Forum.

God bless everybody (I hope that's acceptable),

Dan

[This message has been edited by Dan De Yarman (edited 24 February 2000).]

 

[Dan De Yarman]

QS-9000 TE element 4.10.4.1 is specifically describing functional verification as the Machinery Qualification Runoff Requirements. That is also the interpretation we obtained from our class.

I do understand, however, what you are talking about. We go through what we call a debug stage of our assembly in preparation for runoff with the Customer. We currently use a Preliminary System Inspection & Runoff form as a checklist showing that the machine is ready for the Customer runoff. This is the internal form that we use to notify everyone (internally) that we believe the machine is ready for a Customer runoff. The "bells and whistles" are not specifically covered as part of this form. The "bells and whistles" are, however, covered in our preparation for Customer runoff. We look at the machine as a whole in qualifying it for runoff. There are also areas on our Equipment Runoff and Shipping Approval forms for the Customers to comment on things they want done as a condition to accepting the machine, in case the "bells and whistles" aren't exactly what they wanted or expected.

Dan

 

[Marc]

Dan: Are you interested in moderating this forum? I think Bryon has moved on to other pastures.

 

[Laura M]

Dan,
One question debated at length during a T/E seminar I sponsored (along with Barb...and Marc) was the definition of functional verification. It was taught as meaning the Machine qualification run. I argued, being that I was in the middle of working with a Tooling shop(automated equipment), that there was much more than MQ for functional verification. (Elemente 4.10.) Most shops do a top to bottom verification that all the "bells and whistles" are functional. These "bells and whistles" wouldn't necessarily appear during an MQ run, only if something goes wrong. We treated them as 2 separate parts of their quality system for the shop I worked with. I realize over an above the QS T/E requirements can't hurt, but in terms of relating their quality manual to the standard, I was curious of the interpretation from your class.

The instructor hadn't seen any interpretation other that the MQ requirement. Any additional insight from your class?

 

[Dan De Yarman]

Marc,

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you asked me this question. Although I'm flattered that you would ask me, I cannot accept.

I am (very) possibly looking at a career change in the near future and I don't believe, at this point in time, it would be fair for me to be the moderator for only a few months. I will however continue to give my opinons and suggestions as aprropriate. Even after I change my career, I may check back from time to time just to see how things are going.

Again Marc, I apologize for not responding sooner to your offer.

Dan