I would like the theoretical understanding of how an AQL Inspection & Test corresponds to the requirement for Control of Nonconforming Product. I am currently in debate with management on what I think is a conflict with the current practice.
The case being discussed involves a characterisitc that is only verified by Manufacturng Operators. The characteristic is not inspected by QC Inspectors during their Inspection Points during the manufacturing process. During Final Inspection by QC, who is performing 100% Visual Inspection of all cutting surfaces, four (4) pieces out of a lot of 1900 pieces are scrapped for a dimensional characteristic (a "narrow" characteristic). What compounds this scrapping activity is that the lot of 1900 pieces was inspected by 4 different inspectors over a five day period. There is no indication as to which of the inspectors scrapped the product and when the nonconformance was identified.
Most of the current management believes that the scrapping of the four pieces does not require any further control of the nonconforming product. The lot does not need to be sorted for the dimensional characteristic. The four nonconformances were identified during a 100% Visual Inspection by four competent inspectors over a given time period. My boss presents the rationale that since Inspection & Test to an AQL allows for acceptance of a level of nonconformity, that any nonconformity (visual or dimensional) identified during 100% Visual Inspection is sufficient and that the job does not require any further sorting - let alone 100% sorting and measurement for the dimensional requirements established internally - not an external requirement.
What would you do and why?
Thanks,
Doug
The case being discussed involves a characterisitc that is only verified by Manufacturng Operators. The characteristic is not inspected by QC Inspectors during their Inspection Points during the manufacturing process. During Final Inspection by QC, who is performing 100% Visual Inspection of all cutting surfaces, four (4) pieces out of a lot of 1900 pieces are scrapped for a dimensional characteristic (a "narrow" characteristic). What compounds this scrapping activity is that the lot of 1900 pieces was inspected by 4 different inspectors over a five day period. There is no indication as to which of the inspectors scrapped the product and when the nonconformance was identified.
Most of the current management believes that the scrapping of the four pieces does not require any further control of the nonconforming product. The lot does not need to be sorted for the dimensional characteristic. The four nonconformances were identified during a 100% Visual Inspection by four competent inspectors over a given time period. My boss presents the rationale that since Inspection & Test to an AQL allows for acceptance of a level of nonconformity, that any nonconformity (visual or dimensional) identified during 100% Visual Inspection is sufficient and that the job does not require any further sorting - let alone 100% sorting and measurement for the dimensional requirements established internally - not an external requirement.
What would you do and why?
Thanks,
Doug
In your initial post you said,