Are we using the right sampling plan?

B

boerne6

#1
This site is great by the way...I have found a lot of good information so far...

Now to my issue...I am the quality manager of a small contract manufacturing company (23 employees). We make a heat pack for a medical device company.

I am NOT a statistical guru by any means and I actually inherited the current AQL inspection criteria from the engineer who is no longer here. Our testing is simple "Go/No Go" we have specs for temps and weight and the bags we pull every hour either pass or they fail.
We typically have production lots in the 35,001 to 150,000, S4, .65 so we are pulling a total of 80 samples throughout the job ( a job may run in one day or over multiple days).
In addition, a production asssoc is pulling 1 bag per hour and performing the same test.
And even though the Std allows us 2 failures before we reject the lot, we stop the line if the temp is out on even 1 of the bags.
Does this sound like a sampling plan we should be using or is there a better one someone could suggest?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
B

Benjamin28

#2
Perhaps you could clarify...better in what way? So the question would need to be clarified, do you want to ensure less defects/lot? Is the reliability of your current sampling plan in question?

The sampling plan you're using now aligns with ANSI/ASQC Z1.4-1993, the S4 is used when smaller sample sizes are necessary or preferable and large risks can be taken. Typically this is decided after 10 or more lots display acceptable defect % under a normal inspection/sample plan. As long as you, and your customers, are accepting the AQL of .65 and your lots have a history of being defect free under normal sampling you're good to go.

I would recommend picking up a decent book on sampling plans, typically they will outline accepted standards and make for a great reference...ASQ has a few which come to mind. ;)

I'll let a few covers more experienced suggest improvements, but from my side of the world the sampling numbers sound right.

Oh, and congratulations on becomming a Cover, it's a great resource which keeps you thinking and learning.
 
B

Benjamin28

#3
I forgot to mention the guy you have pulling a bag every hour, sounds like he's doing this just to give you peace of mind as this follows no plan and really is unnecessary if your primary sampling plan is within accepted standards. If it were me I'd have him doing something more productive. :tg:
 
B

boerne6

#4
OK.."better" is the wrong word...maybe I mean "more efficient".

With the AQl of .65 in place, how many potentially defective product are we allowing into the field?
 
C

crentinger

#5
I'm not sure if this will help you but the old MIL-STD-105E and MIL-STD-414 were cancelled and replaced by a consolidated standard in 1996. They are now MIL-STD-1916 can be found here assistdocs.com/search/search_fsc.cfm or downloaded from my attachment :D
 

Attachments

Ajit Basrur

Staff member
Admin
#6
I'm not sure if this will help you but the old MIL-STD-105E and MIL-STD-414 were cancelled and replaced by a consolidated standard in 1996. They are now MIL-STD-1916 can be found here assistdocs.com/search/search_fsc.cfm or downloaded from my attachment :D
MIL-STD-105E was replaced by ANSI / ASQ Z 1.4
 
B

Benjamin28

#7
Hmm yes, I was going by the ANSI/ASQ Z 1.4 ....not sure when the 105E was mentioned....

Anyhow, I apologize Boerne, I had lost track of this thread and hadn't seen your question regarding the AQL of .65

AQL in this case would be defined as "the maximum percent defective (or the maximum number of defects per hundred units) that, for purposes of sampling inspection, can be considered satisfactory as a process average" The idea is to have a low probability of accepting a lot which has more percent defective than the .65 .

As suggested, it would be a decent idea to pick up a good reference book, to have on hand for things such as this as it will give you a more thorough review of samping plan information and your options. More so if you don't deal with sampling plans on a frequent basis it is easy to forget.

The important thing when it comes to this type of sampling plan is to be sure your customer approves of the AQL and the plan, else you might end up with a very unhappy customer.
 

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Staff member
Super Moderator
#8
OK.."better" is the wrong word...maybe I mean "more efficient".

With the AQl of .65 in place, how many potentially defective product are we allowing into the field?
This is a tough question to answer...

The easy answer is that you will ACCEPT a lot that is .65% defective 95% of the time.

to answer your question, we would need to know how your line normally is and whether or not it is stable or if the defects 'come and go'.
 

Tim Folkerts

Super Moderator
#9
AQL in this case would be defined as "the maximum percent defective (or the maximum number of defects per hundred units) that, for purposes of sampling inspection, can be considered satisfactory as a process average" The idea is to have a low probability of accepting a lot which has more percent defective than the .65 .
That is not quite the right interpretation. You have a high probability (around 90%-95% typically) of accepting a lot which has a percent defective of 0.65 or less.

Generally you need to hit a rate of about 5x ( depending on the specific plan) greater than AQL before you hit a high probability (i.e. 95%) of rejecting a bad lot.

Tim F
 
B

Benjamin28

#10
Yes Tim is right, the true way the plan is statistically determined is by ensuring you are accepting lots with .65 or less percent defective to a 90-95% probability level, which as an effect means you probably won't accept a lot which has more percent defective than your .65 aql. Sometimes I tend to look at things backwards at an angle through a mirror and around a corner...this year is one of those times :lol:

There really are so many numbers of ways to decide on a sampling plan though, my suggestion to do some research still stands, you may find that your current plan is sufficient, or you may find a suitably efficient way of ensuring better quality, in either case you'll likely know more.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J Incoming Inspection Records using Excel File ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
J Using ring gauges General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 2
M Load Cell Calibration using a totalizer on a flow meter General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 0
P Can Neoprene be Cleaned Using Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA) Manufacturing and Related Processes 4
GreatNate Anyone using the Intellect QMS software? Quality Assurance and Compliance Software Tools and Solutions 1
chris1price Sterilization using beta radiation Other Medical Device Related Standards 2
M Using the phrase "herein referred to" Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 8
B Struggling with using the 5.6 version Ford Capacity Analysis Report APQP and PPAP 5
cnbrosa Study Type 1 on a CMM using a measuring support Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 4
R MRB (Material Review Board) Process using MS Sharepoint or MS Teams Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
K 510k FDA review, will they accept Biocompatibility result generated using feasibility product lots? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 8
B AS9100D 7.1.5.2 Calibration or Verification Method using outside cal lab AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 1
U Medical Device CE Marking - Using a disposable bearing CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 3
D Calibration tolerance question using Pipettes Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 1
D Risk Analysis using Monte Carlo Simulation instead of Scoring and Heat Map Risk Management Principles and Generic Guidelines 2
W Using tailoring guidelines to tailor a QMS procedure ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
Y We found out we have been using a equipment without validation for past 4 years Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 6
D Using Laboratory Notebooks in R&D and Design and Development ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
C Importer shell game - Using a third party logistics provider (3PL) in the EU EU Medical Device Regulations 5
S Work performed in Canada on US patients using US device Canada Medical Device Regulations 1
S Is using ANSI/ASQ Z1.4-2008 the correct sampling plan to determine Pass/Fail of Apparel measurements? AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 4
A What are the pros and cons of using an audit software for internal auditing? General Auditing Discussions 7
Tagin Evaluating nonconformances for escalation using Bayesian methods? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 2
D Using non-conforming components even though the final assembly is conforming? Manufacturing and Related Processes 5
B Using Unreleased Documents & Process Maps for Internal Audit purposes ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 12
R Clause 7.7 Replicate, Recalibration and Intermediate checks using Artifact ISO 17025 related Discussions 1
Stoic Are any medical device companies using the 2011 FDA process validation guidance instead of GHTF/SG3/N99-10:2004? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
B Unit of Use DI (Device Identifier) - Products using the same device US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
A Using Arduino based sensors for Poke-Yoke Manufacturing and Related Processes 6
M Using your Manufacturer's ISO certification ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
Ed Panek Adverse Event Clinical Trial using a 510K approved Device Other US Medical Device Regulations 6
B Using non CE parts in a machine CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 1
G Gauge R&R on multiple dimensions using 3D measurement system Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 6
A Hospital IT expectations for connected medical device using WIFI Medical Information Technology, Medical Software and Health Informatics 0
Proud Liberal Cp / Cpk on position using multiple MMC bonuses Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 2
B Using external FDA and ISO 13485 audit as internal audit Internal Auditing 6
D Using "Particle Size Standard" templates as gauges - How to avoid giving a gauge # while using for process control? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 2
J Class 1 Medical Device - Using a UPC over the UDI? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 0
I Reducing CE marking cost using manufacturer test reports CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 5
CPhelan Using clinical trial safety data for evidence for CE marking EU Medical Device Regulations 8
M Accredited Calibration Sevice Provider using computerized system to issue calibration certificate Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 3
M Accredited Calibration Sevice Provider using computerized system to issue calibration certificate General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 2
M Raw stock material testing discrepancy using an XRF (x-ray fluorescence) analyzer Manufacturing and Related Processes 7
Z Using FMEA for Knowledge Management FMEA and Control Plans 6
Sidney Vianna NASA to Develop a Novel Approach for All-Electric Aircraft Using Cryogenic Liquid Hydrogen as Energy Storage World News 2
S How many of you are using Robotic process automation for calibration lab management? ISO 17025 related Discussions 0
J Including Repeats in DoE using Minitab Using Minitab Software 5
S Legal Manufacturer FDA Reporting Obligations for Using New Contract Sterilization Site Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
John Predmore What size pinhole can be reliably detected using visual inspection? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 7
D I'm new in IMDS special using the IMDS application Manufacturing and Related Processes 8

Similar threads

Top Bottom