Identification of Product off the Manufacturing Floor - How strict do we need to be?

[Caster]

Re: Identification of Product off the Manufacturing Floor - How strict do we need to

Recently they have stated that they post a sign that states “All parts within this area are under investigation and are considered suspect DO NOT SHIP! “ instead of labeling the parts described above.

I've been down this road as well, but in my case it was with defective parts in a training room. I said that those were pretty smart parts to be able to stay put in a room, but identify themselves if they got out.

Funny, people were pretty proud of their sign. They really got one over on quality.

They could not say however, how many parts were in the room originally, what those parts were, or even what the defect was. Sure enough, as the room got tidied up over time, the parts disappeared. Where oh where did they go? The people with the sign are still looking for them.

 

[Sebastian]

Re: Identification of Product off the Manufacturing Floor - How strict do we need to

You've never heard of a prototype or pre-production control plan?

Yes, I've heard, but where do you see in my comment wording "mass-production? Still I do not see engineer's desk in prototype control plan.

You don't believe that parts outside the normal production flow ever find their way out the door? You don't think it's important to properly identify prototype, pre-production and experimental parts no matter where they are? If that's the case, please share your method for controlling them.

Theoretically no, but if there was such a case, related people should be made aware of such accident and risk to the customer.

What? Where did you get that idea? I see lots of things in the product realization clause of TS 16949 that aren't part of control plans.

We are talking about product status, so control plan is the first path to look for product realization scope.

 

[brahmaiah]

Re: Identification of Product off the Manufacturing Floor - How strict do we need to

I’m hoping you all can help me settle an issue that has been a point of contention among our engineering departments (Quality and Production Engineering) and me (the TS "enforcer") for some time.

From a TS stance, I (as our Corporate TS 16949 Coordinator) have always promoted that all product needs to be identified at all times, unless otherwise inherently obvious (per the TS 7.5.3 Identification and Traceability and the related Note).

This includes all random parts and trays or totes of parts that may be sitting on an engineer’s desk in the office area, removed from the manufacturing floor. These parts may be trial parts, customer line claims, random parts for investigation, etc.

Engineering has consistently argued that they do not to be identified; that since they are in the office area, there is no danger of shipping wrong parts. Recently they have stated that they post a sign that states “All parts within this area are under investigation and are considered suspect DO NOT SHIP! “ instead of labeling the parts described above.

Is it unreasonable to expect that these parts should be labeled?

My interpretation of the standard is yes they should. What does everyone else think? Are we still meeting the intent of the standard if these parts in the office area are NOT labeled?

Thank you!!

Your interpretation is correct.Parts when being seperated from their batches should be labeled.TS16949 Requirement is very clear on this.
Read the standard below:

7.5.3 Identification and traceability

ISO 9001:2008, Quality management systems — Requirements

7.5.3 Identification and traceability

Where appropriate, the organization shall identify the product by suitable means throughout product realization. 171

The organization shall identify the product status with respect to monitoring and measurement requirements 172
throughout product realization.

Where traceability is a requirement, the organization shall control the unique identification of the product and 173
maintain records (see 4.2.4).

NOTE In some industry sectors, configuration management is a means by which identification and traceability are
maintained.

NOTEInspection and test status is not indicated by the location of product in the production flow unless inherently
obvious, such as material in an automated production transfer process. Alternatives are permitted, if the status is clearly
identified, documented and achieves the designated purpose.

7.5.3.1 Identification and traceability — Supplemental(TS16949 ADDITION)


The words “Where appropriate” in 7.5.3 shall not apply

V.J.Brahmaiah

 

[howste]

Re: Identification of Product off the Manufacturing Floor - How strict do we need to

What? Where did you get that idea? I see lots of things in the product realization clause of TS 16949 that aren't part of control plans.

We are talking about product status, so control plan is the first path to look for product realization scope.

The source of my information is the ISO/TS 16949 standard. Since you seem to be disagreeing with what I said, please state the source of your information.

 

[trainerbob]

Re: Identification of Product off the Manufacturing Floor - How strict do we need to

What is the culture of the organization? Is it TS16949 or "just whatever we feel like"? TS requires identification!!!!

If there is a possibility of non-conforming parts going to the customer(which is too often the case in this type of situation) it is a major non-conformance. Lets have your engineers answer to the higher ups for that one!!!!

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: Identification of Product off the Manufacturing Floor - How strict do we need to

Yes, I've heard, but where do you see in my comment wording "mass-production? Still I do not see engineer's desk in prototype control plan.

"Mass production" is the phase that is represented by the "production" control plan (as opposed to control plans for the prototype and pre-production phases of APQP), and is what I thought you were referring to. In any case, the fact that you don't "see engineer's desk in prototype control plan" is exactly the problem. If you think that a control plan--regardless of the APQP phase--should represent a guide to where parts might be at any given time, you're courting disaster. Similarly, if you think that the standard requires only that parts in the production flow represented by the control plan are the only ones that "shall" be identified, you're simply wrong. The fact is that parts that appear salable might very well be on an engineer's desk or (as someone else suggested) on a table in a training room, or in a salesman's car, and when they are, they need to be identified.

 

[Sebastian]

Re: Identification of Product off the Manufacturing Floor - How strict do we need to

The source of my information is the ISO/TS 16949 standard. Since you seem to be disagreeing with what I said, please state the source of your information.

Same as mine. It seems that there is a big difference in organization cultures, so "putting this engineer's desk in 7.5.3" is too hard for me.
We have products during inspection which are identified and parts on the desks which are not. This is question of office staff awareness/responsibility (whatever) what they are going to do with parts on their desk.
Maybe my understanding of TS is wrong, but my Pareto of quality concerns clearly states "engineering-desk-unidentified-parts impact on PPM is 0, so correct something else". If your Pareto is different, you have to act in other way.

 

[howste]

Re: Identification of Product off the Manufacturing Floor - How strict do we need to

Same as mine. It seems that there is a big difference in organization cultures, so "putting this engineer's desk in 7.5.3" is too hard for me.

Engineers are directly involved in product realization. TS 16949 requires product identification throughout product realization. Being "too hard" has nothing to do with it. There are much harder TS 16949 requirements than this one.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: Identification of Product off the Manufacturing Floor - How strict do we need to

Engineers are directly involved in product realization. TS 16949 requires product identification throughout product realization. Being "too hard" has nothing to do with it. There are much harder TS 16949 requirements than this one.

I had earlier posted a defense of Sebastian's reasoning (which I deleted) based on the "where appropriate" language of 7.5.3, thinking in terms of ISO 9001. TS16949 adds a clause (7.5.3.1) which says that the "where appropriate" in 7.5.3 doesn't apply to TS16949. This means that Howste is correct, and Sebastian's contention that there is little risk in his situation is irrelevant. Engineering is part of the product realization process, and all parts need to be properly identified.

 

[R. Webb]

Re: Identification of Product off the Manufacturing Floor - How strict do we need to

You've never heard of a prototype or pre-production control plan?


You don't believe that parts outside the normal production flow ever find their way out the door? You don't think it's important to properly identify prototype, pre-production and experimental parts no matter where they are? If that's the case, please share your method for controlling them.

All I can say is I'm glad I'm not in automotive. Rarely have I ever gotten an engineer to change anything they do for a quality system. If I went after parts on their desk I would be laughed at and kicked out of if not outright banned from the engineering department.

You want to get it done you gotta go to the top and have it come down from on high. One sorting bill from a large production run ought to help you out.

Good Luck!