V
I would suggest reporting both number of non-conformances (audit findings) and well as repeat issues. Break it out by layer. It’s no good if the 1st layer group leader finds none, 2nd layer supervisor finds 10, and 3rd layer quality finds 50. Should be the other way around.
The core items should be the same all the time but you can get great benefits from having a dynamic one. Add and remove as needed. New check based on Customer return, failed calibration or higher scrap seen on a particular machine, checks specific to a particular process/line that is different than others, verification period for a new control or machine repair. As the verification period passes…the checks can drop off or go to reduced control.
The core items should be the same all the time but you can get great benefits from having a dynamic one. Add and remove as needed. New check based on Customer return, failed calibration or higher scrap seen on a particular machine, checks specific to a particular process/line that is different than others, verification period for a new control or machine repair. As the verification period passes…the checks can drop off or go to reduced control.
