Must we do Receiving Inspection for everything?

[LesPiles]

Hello everyone,


We receive unpopulated pcb and normally we do a receiving inspection. Our process is simple: storekeepers perform a basic check of received items (PO, respect of quantities , ...) and when "technical" goods enter (like pcb's , transformers , etc.) , we assign a second level of inspection by a technician. Storekeepers know that the component must be passed to a 2nd level via a code on the PO .

Since we perform subcontracting , customers sometimes provide their own pcb . This becomes problematic :
Do we still must inspect these cards? Our quote does not include the time for this ;
When the techs come to inspect, they do not have the certificate of conformity for these pcb's (an inspection tool is then missing) ;
Currently , the same code is placed for pcb's ordered for our products and those of our clients.
This issue causes a problem for us because the storekeeper must often disturb a technician to be told from him that he can not inspect the product !

What are your suggestions ? your thoughts about this ? Your solutions ?

Thank you in advance to all those who contribute to the resolution of my problem!

LesPiles

 

[PaulJSmith]

Re: Must we do a receiving inspection for everything ?

Not sure I understand your dilemma. What is the CoC providing you that either allows or disallows your inspectors to inspect the parts?

 

[BradM]

Re: Must we do a receiving inspection for everything ?

What is the purpose of the inspection?

If the purpose of the inspection is to verify that the PCB boards you received matches what you ordered, then "no" I don't think the customer supplied boards matter. You are merely assuring that you received what you bought.

Performing some level of quality/technical inspection of the boards is another matter. If you perform this type of inspection, it needs to be performed on all boards.

If you start having failures in products, the cost of figuring out and fixing who "owns" the failed boards is going to be very high. I would develop a system to inspect every board (quality/technical inspection, if applicable) prior to use.

 

[Big Jim]

It would be silly not to inspect anything incoming that goes into production. The risk is similar to playing kickball on the freeway.

 

[Jeff Frost]

Actually your dilemma falls under Clause 7.5.4, Customer Property. The 2nd sentence in this clause clearly states that “the organization shall identify, verify… customer property provided for use or incorporation into the product”.

The verification could be as simple as verifying that PCB are the correct part number, they have not been damaged, and you have received the quantity specified on the packing list. If you find during production that this customer supplied PCB always has shorts or opens, then you may consider adding electrical test of the bare board as part of your verification.

 

[John Broomfield]

LesPiles,

I agree with Jeff.

And your contract reviews should make sure the specified verification of incoming customer items is clear to both parties and that all specified verifications are within your capability for the price you charge for the work.

John

 

[AndyN]

It would be silly not to inspect anything incoming that goes into production. The risk is similar to playing kickball on the freeway.

Why, Jim? When I ran the receiving inspection function all we did for some products was i.d, damage and quantity - not really "inspection"...

Now, in the context of something the customer gives you to incorporate? Then yes, inspection should be established, along with an understanding of how the customer planned for their supplier of these boards to get them right, so you can back off inspection when experience says so.

This may be a learning experience that the next time you engage with a customer and they supply boards, bill them for inspection! (if it's warranted)

 

[J0anne]

I would suggest either a sampling plan, or insist on certificates of conformity from your supplier.

 

[Big Jim]

Why, Jim? When I ran the receiving inspection function all we did for some products was i.d, damage and quantity - not really "inspection"...

Now, in the context of something the customer gives you to incorporate? Then yes, inspection should be established, along with an understanding of how the customer planned for their supplier of these boards to get them right, so you can back off inspection when experience says so.

This may be a learning experience that the next time you engage with a customer and they supply boards, bill them for inspection! (if it's warranted)

It would be silly not to call that inspection.

 

[AndyN]

It would be silly not to call that inspection.

"Silly"? These were electronic components from reputable suppliers, through their distributors. Are you really suggesting i.d, count and packaging damage, "inspection"?