Has anyone heard of Run at Risk?

[ScottK]

Honestly, how is this different than sampling inspection?

If you're checking a critical feature hourly for example, you are "running at risk" in the 1 hour interval between checks. Standard practice is that if it fails an hourly check, everything run in the prior hour is suspect. I would hope that a failure on your CMM layout would trigger a similar reaction.

Run at risk, in my experience, means running without first piece or setup approval.
And not everyone does in-process inspection so sometimes a whole run can be at risk.

For Example - I worked for a time in Chemical Packaging. The bulk chemicals were supposed to be tested in the lab prior to packaging. But if there was an urgent need for the product, production could package the chemicals while the bulk test sample was in the lab queue. The packaged chemicals would be packaged but blocked from shipping until the lab testing was approved. There was no in-process check for chemical characteristics so the risk is that the whole lot could be rejected.

 

[Matt's Quality Handle]

Run at risk, in my experience, means running without first piece or setup approval.
And not everyone does in-process inspection so sometimes a whole run can be at risk.

For Example - I worked for a time in Chemical Packaging. The bulk chemicals were supposed to be tested in the lab prior to packaging. But if there was an urgent need for the product, production could package the chemicals while the bulk test sample was in the lab queue. The packaged chemicals would be packaged but blocked from shipping until the lab testing was approved. There was no in-process check for chemical characteristics so the risk is that the whole lot could be rejected.

Exactly.

The risk is the scrap cost of the production during the checked time period. Multiply that by the probability (based on process history) of encountering a failure would give the expected cost of running at risk. Management should compare that to the cost of the 30 minutes of downtime, and decide accordingly.

All of this however assumes that:
1) Traceability is robust - You'll be able to contain all product produced during the at risk period
2) Management is honest - For example, if you produce $eleventy billion worth of product at risk, management won't say that it's too expensive to scrap if the CMM layout is bad.

I've authorized production to run at risk in some of these situations:
Gage is unavailable - Production started without a dimensional gage. They were allowed to send their first piece to CMM instead of the form gage. They produced parts while the ~30 minute CMM program was running.
Gage is out of calibration - The gage was used, but samples retained for CMM measurement at the end of the run.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I can't say that it's common practice in my experience, but it does happen. The concept of "risk" assumes that the probability of something bad happening has been weighed and the risk has been found to be acceptable (or not). If it's done by the seat of the pants and a roll of the dice, it's not good practice, but if the risk has been properly assessed and potential effect on the customer is negligible, why not?

 

[Johnnymo62]

I think that if you are not working under a QMS like ISO 9001:2015, you can do and make up whatever you want. If you are under a QMS then you are currently not producing to the documented processes. You need a CYA. If under a QMS you should have a process to deal with nonconforming material, like red tags and MRB sign off, etc. Whether the CMM layout passes or fails you have prevented shipping before knowing the results. Pass or fail, either way, you can have buy in and sign off at MRB to CYA.

 

[Rich Shippy]

I have also recently heard this term and used in the same context you are describing. I recall years ago the term "positive recall" was used, to address the situation of running product before material certs, or COC's were obtained.

 

[qualprod]

This is a increasingly used (almost daily) method at the plant I am in currently.
Production upper management deciding to "run at risk" while awaiting completion of first piece inspection. Blaming it on urgency to ship.
First piece has to include a check on the CMM which takes longer than just the dimensional gaging.

It can be managed with some customers, since exist an AQL established, so both are agree that some percentage of products might be bad, and under this zone they are working, on the other hand if this not the case, this relationship ship will not last too much. My two cents