Receiving Inspection Procedure - Visual inspection defined

[little__cee]

We have a procedure titled Receiving Inspection.

In part, it reads:

1.1 Receiving inspection consists of visual inspection of product and/or containers for damage and verification that the paperwork (i.e., bill of lading, packing slip, etc.) accurately describes the content of the shipment. Incoming inspection may also include other quality checks (attribute, variable, weigh count, etc.).

Do others describe exactly what constitutes a visual inspection? At first I laughed, thinking "you look at it!" But here's an example:

We receive galvanized sheets. The owner likes the protective wrapping around the sheets so the inspectors are taking care not to totally destroy this outer layer - instead, inspectors are lifting a small corner, looking at the sheet - and checking off that the entire shipment is not rusty, wet, damaged, etc. What happens then is we go to pull a sheet and its rusty - we look back at our receiving inspection paperwork which stated that it was received in excellent condition...there's no way to know if there's a problem with our suppliers, or our storage facilities, with the way sheets are currently checked in.

I'm not sure if we would be best served by changing the procedure, the inspection checklist, or other methods to solve this problem. I know several others are in the steel industry on this board and I'd like to know how your procedures/checklists are worded so that "visual inspection" means that you look at more than just a small corner of the product.

 

[Al Rosen]

I'm not in the steel industry, but you didn't mention your sampling plan or how many "corners" you look at. Also, when you "pull" a sheet are the corners rusty or other parts of the sheet? Are you doing an appropriate inspection for the problem you are experiencing? What are the storage conditions? Can you measure the galvanized coating thickness? What are all the poosible factors that could comntribute to this problem. An Ishikawa Diagram would be a perfect tool to help you solve this.

 

[Jim Wynne]

"Receiving inspection consists of visual inspection of product and/or containers for damage..."

That seems a reasonable statement; the extent of the inspection is obviously lacking, however. The work instruction or procedure is not what causes the problem; the documentation is only a reflection of the prudent measures taken to insure that incoming material is what it's supposed to be and is in good condition. If, when "bad" purchased material is encountered, the source of the problem can't be ascertained, you need to change the requirements. After you've changed the requirements and you're sure they're what you need, you document them. Don't depend on work instructions as a substitute for common sense.

 

[Wes Bucey]

We have a procedure titled Receiving Inspection.

In part, it reads....

I sympathize with the problem. Essentially, organizations with this problem find themselves in a quandary of making a choice between being TOO detailed or not detailed enough in the incoming inspection instructions.

In my own mind (admittedly a sometimes scary place), I envision a type of FMEA for the inspection instructions.

In the situation you cite, two requirements seem paramount:

1. protective sheets should remain intact
2. sheet metal should not be rusty

However, they are inimical if the bottom line requires usable sheet metal at point of use. Therefore, it seems to me, the prohibition against removing the prtective sheet at incoming inspection is a blind spot in the procedure which should be removed.

Ultimately, each step in ANY inspection process needs to be examined to determine if it will detect nonconformities.

The analogy would be failing to open a damaged carton to check whether the contents were damaged, then sending unopened damaged carton back to the supplier, only to learn the products had been undamaged all along, simply because the procedure said "don't accept damaged cartons," when the TRUE criterion is "Don't accept damaged products."

Obviously, different circumstances require different procedures. If we decided to open a damaged carton, we took step-by-step photos to document damage and state of product. We learned not every damaged carton meant damaged product, but every damaged carton did mean an opportunity to rethink processes for reducing or eliminating damaged cartons or beefing up internal protection within the cartons to ensure no damaged product reached us.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Steel industry? I am, but it's stainless all the way here...

inspectors are lifting a small corner, looking at the sheet - and checking off that the entire shipment is not rusty, wet, damaged, etc. What happens then is we go to pull a sheet and its rusty - we look back at our receiving inspection paperwork which stated that it was received in excellent condition...there's no way to know if there's a problem with our suppliers, or our storage facilities, with the way sheets are currently checked in.

Well, I don't suppose you have the resources to check the entire shipment and then wrap them up again... Thus, you have to put the resources you do have to the best possible use. So you do enough checking to feel reasonably certain that the entire shipment is acc. to spec...

...or maybe you don't since you find rusty plates when you need good ones. As you say: There is currently no way to know where the problem occurs. Wes is right: You need to (at least temporarily), open the wrappings up and find out.

Now, about the rust: What does it look like? Uniform over the surface? Just in the middle? Around the edges? spots? A hint: Bring cold plates in from outside, check them, see nothing wrong and put them in a nice and warm store? Expect rust from condensed water... There are lots of similar possible causes.

"Receiving inspection consists of visual inspection of product and/or containers for damage..."

That seems a reasonable statement; the extent of the inspection is obviously lacking, however.

Agreed, but that info wouldn't necessarily have to be found in the written procedure itself. Most companies I know of index that data with part no. and/or supplier in a separate register.

/Claes

 

[Hershal]

Do others describe exactly what constitutes a visual inspection?

We accreditat numerous steel fabricators and run into similar issues. Visual inspection where exact procedures are described has a place, typically to include the heat numbers or ultrasonic NDT for example. If specific results in a more consistent inspection, then good. However, if it results only in additional time and paperwork without increasing the value of the inspection, then too much detail is too much.

Just my thoughts.

Hershal

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Any news on this one?

/Claes

 

[little__cee]

Update

As a matter of fact, yes, we have made some progress in this area.

There is a binder that inspectors have access to titled "sheet and plate tolerances" with the applicable portions of ASTM standards. We are adding to that binder with more specifics regarding "how" to visually check the material. Managers determined that the paper will be removed and when unsure the inspectors will unband the material for further inspection (currently the paper is left on and the material is left banded). More details will be added to the binder regarding how to check for flatness and we plan on taking digital images of loads that we reject to assemble a visual aid of "this is bad!" which hopefully will be useful when we hire a new warehouse person.

It was also discussed that we may need to assign one person to do nothing but inspect since the "new way" will be more time consuming. The thought is that if we can get our vendors on their toes, so to speak, and they learn that we're rejecting more and more junk that we used to accept then in the future we may decided to pick and choose which vendor loads get the "Level 1" inspection and which ones get "Level 2" -- guessing at names but you get the idea - some will get the white gloves while others will get the eyeball treatment.

I'm confident that we're making progress - time will tell.

 

[QChas]

What happened to making the supplier responsible! I would bring them in, explain how the product is used and tell them you want to be dock to stock. I would then require a test report with each shipment indicating the product is acceptable. Your receiving inspection now becomes reviewing the test report.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

What happened to making the supplier responsible! I would bring them in, explain how the product is used and tell them you want to be dock to stock.

Absolutley... as soon as you have made dead certain that you're not causing the problem yourself by unsuitable storage - which is not uncommon.

/Claes