Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo Especially for content not in the forum
Such as files in the Cove "Members" Directory

Final Dock Audit - Dock Audit (inspection) on every part number?

T

tattva

#21
I don´t seem to understand this clause very well. I mean only until product is finished I can audit product, ´cause what will I audit for instance in the chemical blending, or in the pouring to the mould, or in the manufacturing area or across the entire process? :frust:

I´m not sure if I made myself clear! :eek: in case I have can someone please enlight me! :bonk:

Thanks in advance!
 
S

SteelWoman

#22
What are your controls or measureables in each of those steps? In other words, how do you know in the blending process that you blended it right? You have something already in place, no doubt, to measure that or check it? That IS your product audit.
 

Marc

Captain Nice
Staff member
Admin
#23
Dock Audit Removed?

SteelWoman said:
It IS different in TS, the requirement for a dock audit, per se, was removedin favor of auditing the product throughout the process.
For sure?
 
S

SteelWoman

#24
Yup. (Would I lie to you, Marc?! :D) The phrase "of packaged final product" and the NOTE about Dock Audit was part of QS - is notably missing from TS. TS instead says "the organization shall audit products AT APPROPRIATE STAGES OF PRODUCTION AND DELIVERY to verify conformity to all specified requirements. My understanding is that the intent is to declare a dock audit TOO LATE in the process to be discovering you screwed up - part of the whole TS emphasis on PROCESS. We should be looking at conformity of product all through the processes, not waiting for the poor souls in shipping to figure out that we messed it up. Because of the wording in TS YOU get to decide what the "appropriate stages" are. For some, that will continue to be at the dock - for other processes it may be several points in the processing. Just make sure whatever you decide gets noted somewhere as your "appropriate check." And watch out for an auditor pushing the belief that you MUST do it at the dock. No such "shall."
 
#25
SteelWoman said:
And watch out for an auditor pushing the belief that you MUST do it at the dock. No such "shall."
There is an indirect shall. A dock audit is still required from the standpoint that product on the dock is an "appropriate stage of production and delivery". So, dock audits should still be part of an overall game plan for product auditing. Of course, depending on the levels and type of control, there is a lot of room for maneuvering.
 
S

SteelWoman

#26
"Indirect shall"???

You just made that up, didn't you?

Actually, tho far be it for me to disagree with you, db, I do disagree. When TS specifically removed the "final product" and the "note" in QS that explains "this means a DOCK AUDIT" they opened the door for the supplier/organization to decide what "appropriate" is. In various settings dock audit won't be the appropriate place to audit product. Actually I'm happy to see this change - I've always thought dock audits were a stupid requirement - it's like saying, "YES, we have 100% quality product, and YES we check it throughout it's processing..... but we're gonna check it again right before it goes on the truck just to be sure. "
 
#27
SteelWoman said:
"Indirect shall"???
Ya like that indirect shall thing?

I really don't think we are in disagreement. I think I just need to make myself clearer. What I'm saying is that you just can't say dock audits are not longer required, so I'll not do any. If your circumstances dictate that you need to do dock audits, then you still need to do them. Just like there is no "shall" requiring you have a contract review procedure. But most companies I've worked with really need a procedure. If you really need a dock audit, then you need one, even if it is not required by the standard. On the other hand, if the only reason you needed on in QS was because of the "shall", then you can probably do without. Any clearer?
 
R

Randy Stewart

#28
I always viewed this as a "shelf life" type of inspection. Humidity can be bad here in late summer, so our stampings can become subject to rust. Our shipping personnel check product going out to ensure the parts didn't rust.
400 blanks may go through the draw die operation and sit for 3 weeks until the secondary tooling is on line (necessary due to lack of design freeze from the customer). So the other dock audit performed is prior to delivering the drawn panels back to the Press Room.
 
#29
Randy Stewart said:
I always viewed this as a "shelf life" type of inspection. Humidity can be bad here in late summer, so our stampings can become subject to rust. Our shipping personnel check product going out to ensure the parts didn't rust.
400 blanks may go through the draw die operation and sit for 3 weeks until the secondary tooling is on line (necessary due to lack of design freeze from the customer). So the other dock audit performed is prior to delivering the drawn panels back to the Press Room.
And this sounds like a situation where the dock audit would be considered at an "appropriate stage of production and delivery".
 
#30
A product audit relative to the delivery process is the requirement. Call it a dock audit if you wnat.
The original intent of the a dock audit as described in QS9000 was NOT to break down packaged product and re-inspect. This was a myth perpetrated by over-zealous auditors. QS 9000 required that we "verify" conformance to all specified requirements (e.g. product, packaging, labeling) . . . . . ". For product this can be done by assuring that appropriate records are available that confirm acceptance, for labeling and packaging a checklist outlining customer requirements can be used.
 
Top Bottom