IATF 16949 Clause 10.2.4 - Error Proofing

[htozturk]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 10.2.4 - Error-proofing question

Hello Everyone. I am little bit confused about "verification of challenge parts". Does anyone have an auditor point of view on how to proceed verification of the challenge parts? I have an end line tester checking function and missing sub part. To do verification of challenge parts by the tester sounds not logic. Should these parts be initially verified by third party at first?

 

[optomist1]

although it may not be stated in 16949, when using EP Masters (known good "Gold Rabbit" and bad "Red Rabbit"), the masters must be controlled, for example access limited to line/shift supervisor, and stored to prevent unauthorized access/use.....

 

[Roberticus]

although it may not be stated in 16949, when using EP Masters (known good "Gold Rabbit" and bad "Red Rabbit"), the masters must be controlled, for example access limited to line/shift supervisor, and stored to prevent unauthorized access/use.....

This hasn't been true in my experience, at least insofar as limiting access to test parts to leadership. These green & red rabbits need to be available at point of use, and are typically used by equipment operators. Competency for how to verify error-proofing is part of the training operators are documented to, and associated Work Instructions call out the ID(s) of the rabbits to be used. This is why a master list of green/red rabbits should be maintained, and these are typically subject to periodic calibration verification (as with gaging) if they confirm an under or over-sized dimensional characteristic. Not so much on the calibration if the red rabbit verifies that the e-p device can detect a missing component (shields, rods) or presence of a feature (machined keyway or timing mark).

The CP/ PFMEA will call out the error-proofing device ("Poka #123") but the rabbits themselves usually only on the associated WIs.

 

[vivkrish]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 10.2.4 - Error-proofing question

I agree with you that the frequency of error proofing device verification should be documented somewhere.
But in control plan normally they only list controls over product characteristics, and process parameters.

For example:
Product characteristics Measuring equipment Frequency
Dimension Error proofing device 100%

Process parameters Measuring equipment Frequency
Air pressure Pressure gage at M/C start of shift

It would take some modification to include the frequency of the error proofing device in the control plan. How should we write the control plan?

Error proof verification frequency should be incorporated in Control plan.

You have separate column in control plan, that possess inspection size and frequency..

you should add your error proof verification frequency in the above.

 

[htozturk]

This hasn't been true in my experience, at least insofar as limiting access to test parts to leadership. These green & red rabbits need to be available at point of use, and are typically used by equipment operators. Competency for how to verify error-proofing is part of the training operators are documented to, and associated Work Instructions call out the ID(s) of the rabbits to be used. This is why a master list of green/red rabbits should be maintained, and these are typically subject to periodic calibration verification (as with gaging) if they confirm an under or over-sized dimensional characteristic. Not so much on the calibration if the red rabbit verifies that the e-p device can detect a missing component (shields, rods) or presence of a feature (machined keyway or timing mark).

The CP/ PFMEA will call out the error-proofing device ("Poka #123") but the rabbits themselves usually only on the associated WIs.

In fact, i was focusing the verification of green rabbits. I dont think that it will be enough to put them in to end line tester and see green light saying that "this part is OK".

My opinion is, as an example, one part should be verified by customer or designer mentioning as "OK part (green rabbit)". Then verification of this green rabbit (ex. each month) could be done by end line tester. I hope it has clear explanation

 

[Roberticus]

In fact, i was focusing the verification of green rabbits. I dont think that it will be enough to put them in to end line tester and see green light saying that "this part is OK".

My opinion is, as an example, one part should be verified by customer or designer mentioning as "OK part (green rabbit)".

Agreed, it should be a "known good part" and this should be demonstrated by up to and including a layout, or short of that it should have met all criteria for a good part in your control plan. Generally haven't seen the Customer approve the specific green rabbit

Then verification of this green rabbit (ex. each month) could be done by end line tester. I hope it has clear explanation

Re-verification of the part should match the process by which it was initially approved. This may involve individuals beyond the end line tester (layout or calibration personnel) and is periodic. End of line tester uses green/ red rabbit to ensure ongoing function of the error-proofing device. Don't have the standard in front of me, but this is generally done at the start of each shift...

 

[Andy63]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 10.2.4 - Error-proofing question

Error-proofing device failures shall have a reaction plan.

Do they mean Mistake proofing rather than error proofing?

 

[Stijloor]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 10.2.4 - Error-proofing question

Error-proofing device failures shall have a reaction plan.

Do they mean Mistake proofing rather than error proofing?

Mistake proofing, Error proofing, Poka Yoke, etc., are all the same.

 

[Miner]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 10.2.4 - Error-proofing question

Mistake proofing, Error proofing, Poka Yoke, etc., are all the same.

This may not be relevant to IATF, but Shigeo Shingo made a distinction between mistake proofing and error proofing in his book. His distinction was that a mistake proof was something put into place in the process (e.g., sensor), while an error proof was a change made to the product design (e.g., a notch to prevent misalignment).

 

[Stijloor]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 10.2.4 - Error-proofing question

Per IATF 16949:2016, 3.1 Terms and definitions for the automotive industry

Page 12: Error proofing

Product and manufacturing process design and development to prevent manufacture of nonconforming products.