How AQL Inspection & Test corresponds to Control of Nonconforming Product

Douglas E. Purdy

Quite Involved in Discussions
#1
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
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#2
Douglas E. Purdy said:
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).
How is a dimensional requirement visually verified? What is a "narrow characteristic"?
Douglas E. Purdy said:
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.
If there were no records, how do you know that material was scrapped? Does your system allow for scrapping of n/c parts without documentation? If so, under what circumstances?
Douglas E. Purdy said:
Most of the current management believes that the scrapping of the four pieces does not require any further control of the nonconforming product.
You can't control what doesn't exist:D . If the parts are gone, they're gone.

Douglas E. Purdy said:
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.
It sounds like the lot has had the bejeepers inspected out of it, so what would you hope to accomplish by more inspection? When would you stop?
Douglas E. Purdy said:
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.
AQLs are correctly associated only with sampling inspection. If you're doing 100% inspection and applying an AQL, someone is confused. If you 100% inspect a lot and find x number of defectives, you know that there is a possibility that some defectives went undetected. What you do next is a matter of the level of risk involved and the cost of inspection vs. the potential cost of problems caused by defective parts.

Of course, this is a matter of process control, and discovery of defects should be used to help improve the process, and for that reason alone, defects should always be recorded and reported.
 

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Staff member
Super Moderator
#3
How critical is the characteristic? will it lead to certain product failure? or will it be hard fo rthe custoemr to notice?

How effective is the visual inspection of this characteristic? Is there a chance that visual inspection coudl miss it?
 

Douglas E. Purdy

Quite Involved in Discussions
#4
JSW05 said:
How is a dimensional requirement visually verified? What is a "narrow characteristic"?
My assumption is that the presence of a characteristic (or absence) may be made during a Visual Inspection, but they are performing a comparative visual - but not to a given standard.

JSW05 said:
If there were no records, how do you know that material was scrapped? Does your system allow for scrapping of n/c parts without documentation? If so, under what circumstances?
We have a "Scrap" Column on the Manufacturing Route where the QTY is documented for the given operation.

JSW05 said:
It sounds like the lot has had the bejeepers inspected out of it, so what would you hope to accomplish by more inspection? When would you stop?
The characteristic that was found to be "narrow" is not inspected by QC. It is verified by Manufacturing. Manufacturing verified the characteristic (no specified frequency in the Control Plan) and there were no rejections. So I would not say that the "lot has had the bejeepers inspected out of it." My question is should the lot be sorted for the dimensional non-conformance?

JSW05 said:
AQLs are correctly associated only with sampling inspection. If you're doing 100% inspection and applying an AQL, someone is confused. If you 100% inspect a lot and find x number of defectives, you know that there is a possibility that some defectives went undetected. What you do next is a matter of the level of risk involved and the cost of inspection vs. the potential cost of problems caused by defective parts.

Of course, this is a matter of process control, and discovery of defects should be used to help improve the process, and for that reason alone, defects should always be recorded and reported.
We have designated QC Inspection Points that perform dimensional inspections to a Sampling Plan during the manufacturing process. It is at Final Inspection that a 100% Visual is being performed of all cutting edges. Hope that clarifies your confusion.

So it would appear that based on the risk, you would not perform a dimensional sort of the lot - correct?

Thanks,
Doug
 

Douglas E. Purdy

Quite Involved in Discussions
#5
Bev D said:
How critical is the characteristic? will it lead to certain product failure? or will it be hard fo rthe custoemr to notice?
Does it matter when it comes to control of nonconforming product? I would think that is a question for the disposition phase of the process. The dimensions for the characterisitc are per our manufacturing specifications and not some external specification.

Bev D said:
How effective is the visual inspection of this characteristic? Is there a chance that visual inspection coudl miss it?
The QC Manager believes that the visual inspection is very effective. My problem is that the visual inspection is ONLY DOCUMENTED for the cutting surfaces NOT A COMPARATIVE VISUAL OF ALL CHARATERISTICS.

My concern is that the whole lot was not inspected for the nonconformance - but apparently this is not a concern with the rest of management.

Thanks,
Doug
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#6
Douglas:

I'm still a bit confused (my normal state, if you ask my wife).:bonk: In your initial post you said,
the lot of 1900 pieces was inspected by 4 different inspectors over a five day period.
Now you say,
The characteristic that was found to be "narrow" is not inspected by QC. It is verified by Manufacturing. Manufacturing verified the characteristic (no specified frequency in the Control Plan) and there were no rejections. So I would not say that the "lot has had the bejeepers inspected out of it." My question is should the lot be sorted for the dimensional non-conformance?
So here's what I think you mean: Production ran for x days and during that time there were no rejections. At final inspection, however, 4 pieces were rejected and scrapped. OK so far?
Then the lot has been 100% inspected, albeit not all by the same person. The inspection process identified allegedly defective parts. You want to know whether further processing should be done, and your boss doesn't think so, due to some as-yet unexplained (and perhaps misguided) AQL rationale.


Douglas said:
So it would appear that based on the risk, you would not perform a dimensional sort of the lot - correct?
I don't know anything about the risk, so I'm not recommending anything other than making a decision based on what you know about the risk, and changing your process so that discovery and documentation of nonconforming material provides the information you need in order to improve the process.
 

Douglas E. Purdy

Quite Involved in Discussions
#7
JSW05,

Now you have it. Sorry I was not clear. The job comes into Final Inspection in what I call sub-lots. The Final Inspection went over several days by a number of different inspectors.

So, given the Standard (ISO-9001) requirement for Control of Nonconforming Product; would you have the lot of 1900 sorted for the dimensional nonconformance OR presume that the 100% Visual during Final Inspection was sufficient? Or does it depend on the risk?

Thanks,
Doug
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#8
Douglas E. Purdy said:
JSW05,

Now you have it. Sorry I was not clear. The job comes into Final Inspection in what I call sub-lots. The Final Inspection went over several days by a number of different inspectors.

So, given the Standard (ISO-9001) requirement for Control of Nonconforming Product; would you have the lot of 1900 sorted for the dimensional nonconformance OR presume that the 100% Visual during Final Inspection was sufficient? Or does it depend on the risk?

Thanks,
Doug
The known* nonconforming product is gone. What's left is a lot that may or may not contain additional defectives. Of course, you can say that about any lot of material, so it boils down to confidence. No one here can help you with that--you need to decide for yourself if the risk is worth reinspection or not. There's nothing in ISO-9000 that says you have to inspect anything. You need to do containment (make sure that the suspect lot is identified and no further processing happens until a decision is made) and you need to document your findings and decision. Other than that, it's up to you.

*Actually, "known" may not be accurate. Because the parts identified as nonconforming were scrapped, no determination can be made now as to whether "scrap" was the correct disposition. Part of control of NC material is segregation of the rejected parts until a formal disposition can be made.
 

Douglas E. Purdy

Quite Involved in Discussions
#9
JSW05,

Thanks for your feedback. I was questioning my position since the rest of management was okay with how the lot was processed. I was trying to gather support for my position from fellow Covers. Apparently my position is not that clear-cut when it comes to identifying nonconforming product against the method of inspection. As long as One is confident that the product is conforming - it must be. So I just need to write the system to that standard.

Doug
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#10
Douglas E. Purdy said:
JSW05,

Thanks for your feedback. I was questioning my position since the rest of management was okay with how the lot was processed. I was trying to gather support for my position from fellow Covers. Apparently my position is not that clear-cut when it comes to identifying nonconforming product against the method of inspection. As long as One is confident that the product is conforming - it must be. So I just need to write the system to that standard.

Doug
When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge of it is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced it to the stage of science.

Sir William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
V Receiving Inspection AQL - Am I allowed to just pick a AQL? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 10
L How to calculate the Probability of Deficiency of the AQL of an Inspection AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 16
A Inspection Plans - How to choose AQL (MIL STD 105E) Excel .xls Spreadsheet Templates and Tools 1
L Who and when to determine AQL for our product inspection AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 1
E Translating AQL to a Production Line Inspection Plan AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 14
N Visible particles inspection in powders for injections. Approaches to AQL level Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 1
Q AQL - How do I determine Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) for In-Process Inspection? AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 2
B Choosing Inspection Level and AQL AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 1
M AQL and the impact of increasing Batch Size, or changing Inspection Level AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 2
H Need help with AQL (Acceptable Quality Level) for a QC inspection AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 8
I Medical Device Receiving Inspection AQL AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 5
J Multiple AQL's within same Inspection Report AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 6
R AQL Inspection Interpretation - AQL Percentage Inspection Methods AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 11
S What if I find a defect after AQL (Inspection)? Pharmaceuticals AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 1
J Incoming Inspection AQL Sampling of Bulk Textiles AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 3
T AQL Sample Size for Battery Inspection AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 10
N AQL - Sampling plan (variable, inspection level ii, normal inspection S-method) AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 2
S AQL .65 Level III - Take a particular component off 100% Inspection AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 4
D Difficult Inspection Level/AQL - Verifying it is the correct part AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 5
W How to choose the correct General Inspection Level & AQL level...? AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 5
T What is AQL, Inspection Level, and Type of Inspection AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 16
L Is AQL necessary for ISO 9001 receiving inspection? AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 24
S Using AQL to get true random sampling using General Inspection Level II AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 4
Q Final Inspection lot failures - AQL based final acceptance AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 3
L Incoming (Receiving) Inspection - Is it really necessary that we follow the AQL? AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 7
B 4.10 Inspection and Testing - Do we have to do AQL (MIL-Std-105) sample inspection? AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 3
W LTPD, AQL, Ppk and Cpk validation sampling plan table Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 0
R AQL, Consumer Risk and MA Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 2
A AQL - How to count samples with defects for each defect class AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 17
T Defining sampling plan for different AQL AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 3
S ARMY AQL - Requirements which don't have an AQL associated with them Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
M AQL table - I need to sample 1250pcs AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 3
Nicole Desouza Sampling plan for a customer who wants AQL 1.0 (per ANSI Z1.4) AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 5
V How to interpret AQL sampling tables AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 5
A AQL sampling bags of parts Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 5
I Sampling processes - Who must define the AQL level? AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 9
J AQL for Effectiveness Check - What AQL tiers to use on this type of sampling? Nonconformance and Corrective Action 9
S AQL Inspector's Rule - bring into CQE Exam? Professional Certifications and Degrees 5
N The question asks about sampling plans and AQL Reliability Analysis - Predictions, Testing and Standards 5
K Defining Acceptance Quality Level, I need clarity on AQL 1.5, 2.5, 4.0 AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 5
L Established a c=0 "AQL" or "RQL" table AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 5
A AQL Sampling Plan SOP / WI - Medical Device Industry Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 14
C Example Work Instruction/Procedure for AQL (Acceptable Quality Level) AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 4
P Setting Acceptance Quality Limits (AQL) for New Medical Devices ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
K AQL for Sterile Product - Laminate Tubes 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 5
M How to Mathemetically Derive the AQL Tables given Lot Sizes AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 5
L AQL ANSI z1.4 & z1.9 - What are the differences between these 2 standards? AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 5
P RQL/AQL from Attribute Data Six Sigma 1
B Designing a Sampling Plan - AQL AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 19
S Determining Sample Size - AQL & LQ AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 10

Similar threads

Top Bottom