Monitoring & Measurement of Product

[mshell]

I am in the process of reviewing our Receiving Specifications and have found that we have specs that say "No Inspection Necessary" and that we require:

labels on a roll to be counted
parts in a bag to be counted (sometimes up to 5000)

Is acceptable to identify items that require inspection and perform inspection on only those items?

Are we required to count every nut or bold purchased or is our current documentation too detailed?

 

[CarolX]

I have many items that we don't "inspect" in the traditional manner.

For example.....

Hardware is verified for count and condition only. In other words, if it is packaged properly and no obvious damage, and the count seems right (no, we don't physically count), parts are accepted.

Does this help?

CarolX

 

[db]

I am in the process of reviewing our Receiving Specifications and have found that we have specs that say "No Inspection Necessary" and that we require:

labels on a roll to be counted
parts in a bag to be counted (sometimes up to 5000)

Is acceptable to identify items used to manufacture product and require inspection on only those items?

Are we required to count every nut or bold purchased or is our current documentation too detailed?

The first question is why do receiving inspections at all? Because ISO says so, or because you want to make sure you got the right stuff? 7.4.3 requires that you "implement the inspection or other activities necessary for ensuring that the purchased product meets specified purchase requirements."

So, how do you ensure that the roll has enough lables? (I would laugh if you told me to unroll it, count the lables, and roll it back up --doesn't make sense does it?) How do you know how many parts are in the bag? Is is important to know these things?

It is your system, develop a method that suits your needs.

 

[mshell]

Thanks

Thanks Guys,

As a result of our discussion, I have began the spec elimination process. We are a small organization with over 300 specs. I have now eliminated 31 Receiving Specs and am looking at a potential elimination of 162 in manufacturing.

 

[Bob_M]

Thanks Guys,

As a result of our discussion, I have began the spec elimination process. We are a small organization with over 300 specs. I have now eliminated 31 Receiving Specs and am looking at a potential elimination of 162 in manufacturing.

Just be careful not to eliminate a spec that you NEED. We all want to make things easier on ourselves and the production employees, but make sure the product quality will/can not suffer as a result of reducing or eliminating a spec.

 

[Mike S.]

For things like labels, bolts, office supplies, etc. that are not being directly re-sold to a customer we let the receiving party "inspect" it. This usually involves them checking to see that it is the right stuff, the count looks about right, and initialing the PO and sending it to accounting. Depending on the order size it might take 30 seconds to 5 minutes, and the "procedure" is about 2 lines in our overall "incoming inspection" procedure. Keep it simple and effective -- the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Good advice given in this thread.

I'd just like to add that the word inspection can have many meanings. When I was last involved in inspection activities in a previous job, we split the flood of incoming goods in this way:

Everything was subject to Identification (including a condition check), some of it also to counting and a small percentage to more "traditional" Inspection against specs (The latter accounted for about 3-4% of the incoming goods If I remember correctly).

The important and sometimes tricky part (mistakes will and must be allowed to happen) is to pick the stuff you need to inspect more thoroughly. This is where I recommend a written procedure.

/Claes

 

[RoxaneB]

For us, there are incoming materials and KEY incoming materials. The amount of inspection conducted is dependent upon their role in the quality of the end product and the nature of the product.

While I would love it if we could verify that the lime is the perfect compostion and size, we don't have the time nor resources to do that. Besides, the nature of our business allows to adjust the "recipe", taking into account variations in lime shipments. So, while a Key Incoming Material, the inspection is paperwork-oriented, certifcate of analsyis, bill of lading, timeliness, etc.

Where I buy my pens from is rather irrelevant, so our facility just ensures that the paperwork with the office supplies matches that of the purchase order.

The scrap metal we purchase is 100% inspected to ensure that we are melting only the proper materials. If a propane tank or shock absorber were to inadvertently make it into our furnace...well...the results could be devastating to our personnel.

To compensate for what seems to be a rather cumbersome inspection process then, we allowed each department to develop their own inspection matrix. They list the products, whether they are key, and the inspection process. If key, the process leads a person to the Approved Vendor List, where it is clearly recognized if the supplier is consistently and adequately meeting our requirements.

 

[mshell]

ASTM Standards

I have been reviewing product data sheets and I have a question. If we require a COA as proof of testing (receiving inspection) and the COA references ASTM tests, do we have to have to know how to perform the test? Do we need a copy of the test for our records?

Thanks,

mshell

 

[howste]

I don't believe so. Think about calibration labs. If I send my cages out for calibration to an ISO 17025 certified lab do I need to have a copy of ISO 17025 and know all of the requirements? Do I have to know all of their methods of calibration? You don't have to be experts in everything that your suppliers do.