Determine if your final inspection practices are 'waste' or not

[Mike S.]

Looks like we'd better even define waste in the proper way it was intended. Here is what I assumed, courtesy dictionary.com:

WASTE: to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail or profit; squander: to waste money; to waste words.

 

[SteelMaiden]

First off. It is wasteful and there is no use arguing that it's not. There is no value being added to a good product at the point of inspection. So it's a waste.

TPM and 5S activities are also waste. If your factory stayed clean, effective, and maintained without any investment, then you wouldn't invest. It should be your goal to eliminate all of the waste inherent in the system and the necessity for 5S, TPM, and final inspection are all wastes that are currently inherent in your system.

This is where your argument comes from. You can't argue that final inspection isn't wasteful, but you can argue that final inpection is necessary (if it is necessary that is). If final inspection finds a single bad part in any amount of time, then final inspection is necessary because you have not built quality into the system yet.

If your overzealous lean practitioners want to simply go out and eliminate the inspection, then they are idiots. They need to go to the root cause of why the waste inherent in a final inspection is necessary. After they build quality into the system and you no longer have any defects being found in final inspection...I think you will be completely ready to eliminate the final inspection because then it will be an unnecessary waste.

a little harsh here aren't we? does this actually help the poster make a decision? Final inspection, done at the proper time and place is not what I would consider waste. Done at the improper time or place I would. Redundent testing, I would consider waste. But, in the meantime, I don't think we need to call names. It does nothing to help the OP's decision making process.

 

[duecesevenOS - 2009]

I'm sorry.

I didn't mean to be harsh but I wasn't calling the poster any names either. I did use the word idiot in reference to anyone who would simply eliminate any inspection point that is currently finding bad parts. I should have been more tactful but the point I was trying to make still stands and it is a valid argument that the poster can use with his "overzealous lean practitioners".

If the final inspection is finding defective parts at any point in time, then quality is not built into the process yet. The idea that simply eliminating inspection points without doing something to replace it will save a company money, is idiotic. You won't save money by passing bad product on to your customer.

Final inspection, done at the proper time and place is not what I would consider waste. Done at the improper time or place I would.

The fact remains that it is a non-value added step. The entire goal of the Toyota Production System in this regard is to so fully constrain the input variables to a process that the outputs can not possibly be anything other than what the customer wants. If you have done that and you have the confidence that you have done that, then inspection is pointless and wasteful. Until you do that, however, inspection is a completely necessary waste that adds no value to the product.

If I was in the original posters position, in which there is obviously some disagreement over a decision. I would very diplomatically cede the point that final inspection is a waste. And then I would make the point that we are completely ready to stop doing final inspection (or at least reduce dramatically) as soon as we go a month (3 months...year...etc...) without having a defect in final inspection. This puts the focus of the group where it needs to be, which is on the fact that the company does make defects and they occasionally move down the value stream.

Sorry again, If I'm coming off as harsh.

 

[SteelMaiden]

The fact remains that it is a non-value added step. The entire goal of the Toyota Production System in this regard is to so fully constrain the input variables to a process that the outputs can not possibly be anything other than what the customer wants. If you have done that and you have the confidence that you have done that, then inspection is pointless and wasteful. Until you do that, however, inspection is a completely necessary waste that adds no value to the product.

Are you saying that no inspection is done during the Toyota Production System? I find that hard to believe. I can understand that a separate and redundant measurement may not need to be made after the car is built and before shipping to the dealer, but surely the steering wheel is measured somewhere along the way (final) before being placed on the line for assemply into the car itself?

 

[Mike S.]

I'm sorry.



If the final inspection is finding defective parts at any point in time, then quality is not built into the process yet.



The fact remains that it is a non-value added step. The entire goal of the Toyota Production System in this regard is to so fully constrain the input variables to a process that the outputs can not possibly be anything other than what the customer wants.

Then, by your definition, I would argue that there are VERY few, if any, ongoing processes in existence that have “quality built into the process”.

And, by your definition of the goal of the TPS, I’d say that long term it is about as attainable as perpetual motion. A worthy, but unreachable, goal.

 

[duecesevenOS - 2009]

Are you saying that no inspection is done during the Toyota Production System? I find that hard to believe. I can understand that a separate and redundant measurement may not need to be made after the car is built and before shipping to the dealer, but surely the steering wheel is measured somewhere along the way (final) before being placed on the line for assemply into the car itself?

I'm not saying that Toyota doesn't do any inspections. Of course they do inspections. No one has ever said Toyota is completely without waste. They wouldn't worry about continuous improvement at Toyota if they were perfect. They will however try to eliminate every inspection that they can by making as many parts that don't need an inspection as they possibly can.

Then, by your definition, I would argue that there are VERY few, if any, ongoing processes in existence that have “quality built into the process”.

And, by your definition of the goal of the TPS, I’d say that long term it is about as attainable as perpetual motion. A worthy, but unreachable, goal.

I wouldn't argue back. I completely agree.

The daily pursuit at Toyota and other companies working the Toyota Production System is towards a completely unattainable ideal state. There is no success and there is no completion. They don't ever rest on their laurels because they finally got rid of the waste. The difference between our basic manufacturing plants and Toyota is how close Toyota is to that ideal state.

As for processes with "quality built into the process"...I think you would be very surprised at how little inspection is done, on products, at a Toyota plant. I don't know the specifics of the steering wheel but I would bet on it never having been inspected. If they "inspect" the die casting the wheel, the material going in the cast, the machines doing the casting, the people running the machines, etc... Then they know the steering wheel is good. They don't waste time checking the final part.

 

[Brizilla]

I'm not saying that Toyota doesn't do any inspections. Of course they do inspections. No one has ever said Toyota is completely without waste. They wouldn't worry about continuous improvement at Toyota if they were perfect. They will however try to eliminate every inspection that they can by making as many parts that don't need an inspection as they possibly can.



I wouldn't argue back. I completely agree.

The daily pursuit at Toyota and other companies working the Toyota Production System is towards a completely unattainable ideal state. There is no success and there is no completion. They don't ever rest on their laurels because they finally got rid of the waste. The difference between our basic manufacturing plants and Toyota is how close Toyota is to that ideal state.

As for processes with "quality built into the process"...I think you would be very surprised at how little inspection is done, on products, at a Toyota plant. I don't know the specifics of the steering wheel but I would bet on it never having been inspected. If they "inspect" the die casting the wheel, the material going in the cast, the machines doing the casting, the people running the machines, etc... Then they know the steering wheel is good. They don't waste time checking the final part.

More likely they bought from a 1st tier supplier who inspected all kinds of quality into it. You don't believe they actually made it themselves do you?

As far as "quality built into the process" you're just wrong. Perfection wasn't built into the process - true. To state that there isn't any quality built into the process because a defect was found during inspection, is an insult to every quality professional that works in any industry that has ever produced a defect. That would be just about...everyone! :mg:
It would be better to state that there isn't enough quality built into the system, that it is subject like all things, to improvement.

 

[M Greenaway]

I wouldnt maintain an insection process just because a 'single' defect was found in a period, only if the level of defects was unacceptable and there was no apparent process improvement - this level might of course be one piece.

 

[antoine.dias]

I had a similar situation in the past.

The CEO said "the suppliers are paid good money to deliver good parts, so we will stop the receiving inspection".

I argued this by saying that as long as we find bad parts that have a big impact in our production - or even our customer - we should continue to check and look for (and attack) reasons of the rejects.

We came to a consensus by letting through the parts with less impact and a good reputation and still checking the parts with big impact or worse reputation.
As we didn't do all the inspections anymore, in the long run we had more time to put effort in the things that were important ( SQA preventive actions ) - resulting in better control at the suppliers and more parts with a " good reputation ".

Best regards,

Antoine

 

[SteelMaiden]

Ah, so, Toyota must use the same philosophy that we do (we just never called it anything other than the right way to do things) The point that I am trying to make, and maybe I am too subtle, is that everything has a final inspection somewhere. It might be on the line, during inspection, but somebody has to say, yep, that's ok, it can go on to the next process. I am totally against taking something, putting in queue for shipment and then pulling it out just to measure it to make sure it is (still) ok.