So we have 3 inspections: Final inspection, a packaging inspection and a dock audit.
I can see why the auditor asked for MSAs for these ‘controls’ as I will explain below. I do NOT agree that the OP or anyone should perform a ‘rigged’ test just to check the box and ‘satisfy’ the requirement. This is not only wasteful and dishonest, it sidesteps a real opportunity to assess these controls and improve - or prove - the actual effectiveness of these inspections. OR perhaps even demonstrate that they are ineffective and change them or eliminate them as waste. And isn’t that our goal as quality professionals?
From the responses I am assuming pacnc - and others - have no issues with an attribute study on the final inspection? This clearly falls in the realm of requiring a “Gage R&R” as it is a primary means of control and visual inspection is notoriously difficult to effectively implement. Understanding the repeatability of inspectors will aid in improving the effectiveness of the inspection.
The packaging inspection is a slightly different beast. As I understand it from the OP’s description, it is a ‘self check’ that the packager is packing the correct part and applying the correct label. This doesn’t fit the ‘final inspection’ model as it is not independent and isn’t looking for the traditional ‘defect on a part’. It is looking for an incorrect part and/or incorrect label. As Miner points out a ‘defect’ here is just as bad as a ‘defective part’. And it’s not uncommon. I recently dealt with a similar process where the wrong label was put on two different chemicals and thus placed in the wrong inventory locations. These chemical were then picked and provided to manufacturing who luckily determined that the wrong chemicals were used in the manufacturing of two different products. The products did not pass QC testing. We caught it but the scrap was very costly and if they had escaped to the field it would have been even worse. This kind of ‘visual’ inspection doesn’t really require a typical attribute study, it really only requires an honest assessment of the opportunity for making a mistake. And then taking the appropriate actions to PREVENT the ability to make a mistake. It is important here to remember that a “gage R&R” is only one tool for accomplishing a Measurement SYSTEM assessment. Not all information and/or knowledge can be reduced to a single ‘score’, nor should it.
As for the dock audit, I would take a different approach to the MSA. In these cases the MSA should focus more on the sample size than on the visual effectiveness. A Dock audit is usually a secondary inspection; or as I like to call it “a last desparate attempt to catch an escape”
Usually the sample size of a dock audit is what contributes most to the ineffectiveness of the audit to catch anything. Unless the defect rate is really high a small sample size woul not have much chance to catch anything. And in this case it would be better to improve the upstream final inspection or better yet the process(es) creating the defects. If you have a low defect rate escaping form your manufacturing process a small sample size is usually just a waste of time. Again this MSA is not a typical Gage R&R, but can be very informative...