Do We Have to Comply with Our Own Procedures?

[Big Jim]

I don't know, Jim. You raised the topic.

Again, rather than discuss the differences between my opinion and yours perhaps you could post an excerpt of one of the specs for people to have a look at. Factual approach to decision making.

The next time I'm in a plating shop I'll have a look at the specs. I was in one yesterday. Too bad this wasn't suggested while I was there. One of the plating shops had a nonconformance written against them by a customer for allowing the tank chemistry to walk out of spec and fixed it by checking the tank chemistry more often. I understood that the tank chemistry came from the plating spec.

 

[Big Jim]

You must hang out in different weld shops than I've experienced, Jim! It may not have appeared on your radar screen, but there's a professional qualification, called "Welding Engineer'. In my experience, these are the engineers who determine what's the most appropriate welding procedure to accomplish specific joint. This can include such diverse topics (unrelated to the actual welding equipment) as:

Materials selection
Material pre-treatment (heating annealing)
Physical geometry of the edge profiles
Weld run layouts, sequence, duration, length (to control distortion etc)
Post weld treatments, weld dressing, heat treatments etc.

I fully agree with Paul assertions. I was also heavily involved with platers and anodizers and no-where in the specifications did it give the 'recipe' as you put it, but it did describe the sequences (in chroming for example) and the relative thicknesses which may typically be achieved. In a related world, that of printed circuit manufacture, those suppliers would have thrown us out, if we'd put the recipe on the drawings - we simply stated the tin/lead ratio, thickness and such like.

I'm well aware of welding engineers and what they do.

Still, from my experience, the most common way to validate welding is from using certified welders. There are other ways that may work to validate welding, depending on the situation. What the welding engineer can't do though is make up for an incompetent welder. Instructions from a weld engineer won't compensate for someone that never learned to control the molten puddle.

Are you talking about circuit board soldering? If you are, many are trained to the IPC J Standard and are certified to solder. It is very common to require that the soldering be done to one of the IPC standards. I see it in customer requirements frequently.

 

[Big Jim]

Typical plating specs (ASTM B633 for zinc on steel, e.g.) do not specify bath chemistry.

Every plating shop I have been in monitors tank chemistry and maintains tank chemistry logs. At least some of those logs show the high and low limits for certain chemicals. Where does that information come from?

 

[Jim Wynne]

Every plating shop I have been in monitors tank chemistry and maintains tank chemistry logs. At least some of those logs show the high and low limits for certain chemicals. Where does that information come from?

Plating solutions are often purchased and then maintained (often the case with precious metals) as you've observed, and in other cases they're done in-house, as with simpler, cheaper metals such as zinc. In almost all cases it's the integrity and purity of the deposit, and not so much how it gets there, that counts.

 

[Big Jim]

Plating solutions are often purchased and then maintained (often the case with precious metals) as you've observed, and in other cases they're done in-house, as with simpler, cheaper metals such as zinc. In almost all cases it's the integrity and purity of the deposit, and not so much how it gets there, that counts.

So where do the limits that are tracked in the logs come from?

 

[Paul Simpson]

The next time I'm in a plating shop I'll have a look at the specs. I was in one yesterday. Too bad this wasn't suggested while I was there.

Again, Jim. You rised the topic. I presumed that you had some facts to bring to the party.

One of the plating shops had a nonconformance written against them by a customer for allowing the tank chemistry to walk out of spec and fixed it by checking the tank chemistry more often. I understood that the tank chemistry came from the plating spec.

So a nonconformance was raised for not following procedures. :mg: Kind of brings the discussion full circle. So, in summary:

• This customer has a performance requirement that they solve by requiring a component to be plated
• They or their supplier runs some trials and validates the plating process by testing some plated components
• This process requirement is captured in a plating spec
• The plating spec or the supplier's plating process define bath chemistry - jury still out here - waiting for B J
• The supplier develops a plating procedure that requires the specification to be followed and defines other process parameters to be controlled to deliver parts in accordance with the validated process
• Supplier has to comply with own procedures. Ta da!

Of course there may still be some who feel that this is all 'command and control' or in some way not in the spirit of the brave new world of the process approach.
I say 'horse s**t'!

I'll always prefer to be travelling on a ship where weld procedures are in place and the shipyard makes sure the welders are competent and approved procedures are followed.

Remind me again, Jim, what regisrar do you audit for?

 

[Jim Wynne]

So where do the limits that are tracked in the logs come from?

Experience, mainly. Electroplating is a surprisingly well-studied and documented process, and there are lots of reference materials and even academic studies available.

ETA: I should mention that there are times when the parameters of the whole process, including bath chemistry, are mandated by customers. When that's the case, it's usually because the customer has its own in-house plating line(s) and they're looking for consistency with their own plating. Those cases are not the norm, however, for common commercial applications such as zinc and nickel on steel there are generally no mandated standards.

 

[aliasJohnQ]

Don't you hate that when ISO says "Shall" ?
Actually, we don't have to do anything as a company, but since there are measures in place (set by yours truly) and rules to follow, but let's not even get into the fact that our major customer requested us to be ISO certified.
Most people don't comply, so it's up to the watchdogs or police of the company to watch over everything, but that is why we get paid the big bucks, right????

 

[Big Jim]

Again, Jim. You rised the topic. I presumed that you had some facts to bring to the party.
So a nonconformance was raised for not following procedures. :mg: Kind of brings the discussion full circle. So, in summary:

• This customer has a performance requirement that they solve by requiring a component to be plated
• They or their supplier runs some trials and validates the plating process by testing some plated components
• This process requirement is captured in a plating spec
• The plating spec or the supplier's plating process define bath chemistry - jury still out here - waiting for B J
• The supplier develops a plating procedure that requires the specification to be followed and defines other process parameters to be controlled to deliver parts in accordance with the validated process
• Supplier has to comply with own procedures. Ta da!

Of course there may still be some who feel that this is all 'command and control' or in some way not in the spirit of the brave new world of the process approach.
I say 'horse s**t'!

I'll always prefer to be travelling on a ship where weld procedures are in place and the shipyard makes sure the welders are competent and approved procedures are followed.

Remind me again, Jim, what regisrar do you audit for?

I'm reasonably sure that the tank chemistry specs did not come from the supplier. That is that they were not written up for not following their own spec, but rather a required spec.

Next time I visit that shop I will find out.

You may need to wait for a long time (and I'm sure you know that) if you expect me to be able to pull the plating spec out of my hat. I only have access to them when I'm on site where the plating specs are used.

I'm not sure what you mean by the ship welding analogy. I don't see where I have excluded that as a method of control. Perhaps you are concerned that I'm suggesting that certifying the welder is the only control ever needed under any circumstance. I do not believe that. At different times any or all of 7.5.2 a-c may apply.

And what on earth does this conversation about validation of processes have to do with the process approach?

 

[JaneB]

I'll always prefer to be travelling on a ship where weld procedures are in place and the shipyard makes sure the welders are competent and approved procedures are followed.

Remind me again, Jim, what registrar do you audit for?

Yes, me too.

In spades.