Is quality control a value adding process?

[MD]

Lab (inhouse), that verifies a purchased product and makes final inspection of a produced product before its release is peforming a value adding process or support process?
I would say - both opinions are acceptable. But still.. which to choose when writing manual...

 

[Bill Ryan - 2007]

For the two examples you ask about, I don't categorize them as "value-added". In my mind they fall under a "cost avoidance" umbrella.

"Quality Control" (not exactly sure of your definition) can be viewed as "value-added" if the process is being monitored, proactively, in an attempt to prevent producing nonconforming product (this is just the first example that came to mind).

JMO

Does that make sense?

Bill

 

[Nosmo King]

Definitely not support IMHO

Hello MD

ISO 9000 recognizes -- so does normal good practice -- just two classes of process.

It uses the terms 'product realization' processes on one hand and 'QMS' processes [9001] or -- and this is better -- 'support' processes [9004] on the other.

The verification and final inspection you describe seems to me to be clearly 'product realization' (added value) and not support.

 

[Randy Stewart]

Not too sure

I can't agree Nosmo. IMO anything labeled as "inspection" or "verification" that happens as a separate operation (other than operator) is non-value added. The ultimate goal of a solid Quality or Business system should be to eliminate all inspection and achieve "Built-in Quality".

 

[Mike S.]

Depends on your definition of "value added" I think. I've seen different definitions. If it is defined as "something the customer is willing to pay for", I ask "which customer, internal or external"? If you use the tight definition of things an external customer is willing to pay for then you need to decide if the customer is willing to pay for the testing of the produced product or do they just expect to receive good product? We have some customers who are willing to pay for certain non-standard testing to be performed so they can see exact test data of the produced product, but most of our customers just want to receive in-spec. product and are not willing to pay for us to determine that it is in-spec. JMO.

 

[M Greenaway]

In the classic 'cost of quality' model you would have prevention costs, and you would have failure and appraisal costs - the two groups being inversely proportional. Adding these costs would give you an overall cost of quality.

High prevention costs tend to lead to low failure and appraisal costs. Similarly Low prevention costs lead to high failure and appraisal costs. Naturally at some point you will reach a minimum overall cost, where the balance between prevention and appraisal costs is optimised.

Inspection in any form tends to be considered an appraisal cost. Hence to my mind it adds value if it contributes to lowering the overall costs towards the optimised minimum cost.

make any sense ?

 

[Randy Stewart]

Yep

Mike,
This is an item that can be debated. Is it value added because the customer is willing to pay for it? If they are paying for an SPC report or a study (Code-X, etc.) they are paying for a service, it doesn't add value to the part or product.

Martin,
IMO cost of quality or non-quality is different than something being value added. Inspection, verifications, etc. are part of the equation but to increase value of a part or product the non-value added operations need to be reduced.

 

[M Greenaway]

Randy.

Sorry - you could be right, just got COQ on the brain at the moment.

I was thinking in terms of value to the organisation however, not necessarily value to the customer.

I believe it is value adding however because people are willing to pay for a quality product. In order to get a quality product the supplier must utilise an effective QMS, which brings us back to the balance of quality costs - I think !

 

[Craig H.]

I agree, Martin.

All work is a process, and all processes have variation. Inspection is a process, and it has variation. If our variable production process is making the occasional bad product, we depend on inspection to find it. But, our inspection varies, too, so some bad product may get through to our customers.

The inspection, then, would not be value added, unless the customer was willing to pay extra for it.

However, if the prevention part of the equation reduces inspection and/or improves outgoing quality, then IMO it would be a value-added addition.

Craig

 

[Mike S.]

Maybe we should back-up a tad and ask everyone to give their definition of "value added", and perhaps a few examples then of what (according to their definition) is and is not value added. Just a thought...because I think reasonable people can have different views on this.