Operational planning and product and service provision when things happen so fast

[hayes]

The company I work for, my self included, has recently moved it's ISO 9001:2015 certified (dry friction manufacturing) portion of the business into the same building as it's (laser/press brake) non-certified metal fab business. The expectation is to include the non-certified metal fab portion of the business into the scope and get it certified as well.

One of the reasons I/we were able to get the dry friction portion of the business certified at the previous location is because our customers (John Deere, Honda, Husqavarna, etc) required detailed and collective operational planning of their products from beginning to end. Product and service provision was an absolutely breeze to apply as well. Prototypes, testing, measurement data and approvals were required prior to mass production.

Where I've moved, things happen awfully fast with new parts and customers do not even supply drawings, PPAP or test requirements, etc. In some cases, new parts are processed, and then are shipped out the door before the end of the day without any verification/inspection.

The metal fab process starts with a customer sending an email saying "we need this cut", and will have a DXF attached to the email. At that point a quote is completed and the part is made almost immediately even though we have lead time requirements. There is a review of the part and at that point someone determines it can be made. The problem here is that things happen so fast that there is no evidence showing the product was made correctly.

Due to things happening so fast, how do we address with an auditor the issue of not having evidence of conformity with the majority of the metal fab products?
Previously we could do this since customers required collective operational planning and also product and service provisions.

Kind regards

Brandon

 

[John Broomfield]

Brandon,

Nothing in ISO 9001 slows product realization. By investing in prevention a factory may not need so much product verification.

Sounds like your metal fab business is much more of a “job shop” than the mass production dry friction business. Both sets of customers have different sets of requirements.

Two different systems, each with their own purpose, but both may conform to the requirements of ISO 9001.

So, study the new (host) system to understand how it works instead of assuming that it does not conform to the standard. It will have a different culture (especially with respect to its thinking about risk) and may need a few new processes or controls but do not be too quick to judge against what you are used to. Listen, observe and learn.

You do not mention top management’s reason for having the two different businesses share the workspace. Are they expecting one to learn from the other? Are they planning to merge/share managers, operators, equipment, processes? You need to spend some time with top management to really understand their reasoning.

Even though they may not share their production processes they may share the processes that support production such as recruiting, training, purchasing, investing in improvement and auditing. So, be careful not to foist the support processes on the job shop without learning its requirements.

Your job is about to become a lot more interesting.

Listen well and your advice on any necessary changes stand a much better chance of being welcomed.

John

 

[hayes]

John, thanks for your reply, the metal fab is definitely "job shop". The reason for having the two different businesses share the workspace is to have all portions of the business certified, and also have quality and production support resources available to help with this task since they previously did not have the resources.

 

[John Broomfield]

Is there not a business reason beyond certification?

...sharing you as a vital resource is obviously wise.

 

[hayes]

In all honesty, the business move reason was very low key. We were told the move was gonna happen, and it happened. In the process I was told to get the metal fab side included in the certification and that's it. My thought on a reason for the move is an absolute assumption, and that assumption is that the metal fab portion lacks resources to aid in continuous improvement that can help grow the business.
If the question of "why the move" comes up during an audit, the owner should address that with the auditor.
It's unfortunate that non-of the metal fab customers require specific planning for their products. Since I've been here, we have had new products where I was sure I'd get part submission warrants indicating what would need to be done to get customer approval. I have never received this type of information from metal fab customers.

 

[Tagin]

The problem here is that things happen so fast that there is no evidence showing the product was made correctly.

Due to things happening so fast, how do we address with an auditor the issue of not having evidence of conformity with the majority of the metal fab products?

But how often are customers complaining or returning metal fab product for being nonconforming? I'm assuming its low. Are the folks doing the fab verifying with gauges against some drawing or spec? Or is their machine preprogrammed by someone else to assure the product conforms? I'm thinking that something very "inline" must be going on in the process to verify the product before it goes out the door, or there is a high certitude based on some other factors in the process.

 

[John Broomfield]

Better to stop thinking about passing an audit.

But you’ll probably find that being driven by your internal requirements is just as good, if not better, than being driven by customer submittals.

I have no doubt you’ll see there is more than one way to deliver quality services and products.

 

[hayes]

But how often are customers complaining or returning metal fab product for being nonconforming? I'm assuming its low. Are the folks doing the fab verifying with gauges against some drawing or spec? Or is their machine preprogrammed by someone else to assure the product conforms? I'm thinking that something very "inline" must be going on in the process to verify the product before it goes out the door, or there is a high certitude based on some other factors in the process.

I am aware of a few customer complaints but not many. The complaints I've been made aware of were ones not made to print. This has actually caused loss of business.
Folks doing fab are able to verify products 45% of the time with gages against a drawing 45% of the time currently. The case currently is that at the new location, product will be ordered and is then made without documented inspection/evidence showing that parts were made correctly. I'm just not used to things happening so fast. I'm wondering what the auditor would say if products are made without verifying if they are good or not. My belief is that this method posses a huge risk.

 

[Tagin]

I am aware of a few customer complaints but not many. The complaints I've been made aware of were ones not made to print. This has actually caused loss of business.
Folks doing fab are able to verify products 45% of the time with gages against a drawing 45% of the time currently. The case currently is that at the new location, product will be ordered and is then made without documented inspection/evidence showing that parts were made correctly. I'm just not used to things happening so fast. I'm wondering what the auditor would say if products are made without verifying if they are good or not. My belief is that this method posses a huge risk.

Why are they unable to verify the other 55% of produced product?

I suppose you might be able to argue that you have a "45% sampling rate". After all, it's not uncommon to only verify some percentage of samples of a produced lot and base actions on the sample results (as long as that 45% are reasonably representative of the breadth of product and processes involved).

Another factor is competence (8.5.1e): are the workers doing the fab well-trained and experienced long-time employees, or are these high-turnover positions? A high degree of competence reduces risk and so reduces the reliance on verification. But if it is high-turnover and new applicants are not required to have extensive prior experience, then it seems you must rely on verification.

 

[John Broomfield]

"Cease reliance on mass inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place."

- W. Edwards Deming