S
steveCQE
Hello all. Sorry this is a bit long 
I was hoping to draw on some experiences here regarding receiving inspection for a mid-sized 1st tier auto supplier. I have an opportunity to start from scratch so to speak with our RI but I'm struggling a bit. Are their "best practices" for RI? Is it false to say it will add value since it is a waste generating yet seemingly necessary activity?
Current state is we have one person doing RI, but for lack of a good process (too confusing and no-one is following it, system very broken), the QA lab inspects very few actual parts and no incoming supplier data. It has no impact to weeding out defects before our assy line. As is usual, 20% of our suppliers are 80% of our problem. We have about 70 suppliers, with a total of ~1000 unique parts coming in for current model. I am trying to make sure we do what makes sense, and have a process that will satisfy TS16949.
These are 2 options I'm considering:
----OPTION A.
1. Discontinue RI of actual parts
2. Begin certifying incoming part quality with -data- sent from suppliers to our Supplier Quality Assurance group (SQA). Data to be sent by manufacturing lot per supplier control plan requirements for only critical/significant characteristics. (Approx 70 characteristics over 10 parts per program, ~12 programs total).
Strengths:
-Eliminate RI hard labor cost (1 inspector).
-Eliminate systemic and process sources of confusion between QA lab and SQA groups (simplified process).
-No incoming part handling required .
Weaknesses:
-Significant time investment required of SQA to process, review and manage supplier data. Data must be reviewed in a timely manner (before parts are used).
-Data will most likely always be good, even if incoming parts are NG. Suppliers unlikely to send NG data.
-Need to address supplier willingness to send data with each manufacturing lot.
-Not likely to significantly impact part quality to our and Customer assembly lines.
----OPTION B.
1. Begin certifying incoming part quality with -data- sent from suppliers to QA Lab inspector. Data to be sent by manufacturing lot per control plan requirements for only critical/significant characteristics. (Approx 70 characteristics over 10 parts per program). Inspector to initiate hold documents and assign appropriate SQA if NG stock identified.
2. SQA to identify top 10 worst quality parts for incoming inspection based on history. QA Lab to inspect -parts- per MIL-STD-105E “type” sampling plan methodology. (depending on characteristic, AQL, etc). Audit to occur in QA Lab and warehouse hold area. Inspector to initiate hold documents and assign appropriate SQA if NG stock identified. Top 10 master list for RI to be evaluated by SQA monthly to ensure accuracy.
Strengths:
-Reduce systemic and process sources of confusion between QA lab and SQA groups (simplified process with more emphasis on inspector responsibility).
-Statistically valid sampling plan gives best chance to find defects.
-Ongoing SQA workload should not drastically change. Moderate initial workload to set-up system, low ongoing workload.
-Top 10 worst quality parts on hold, cannot be used until QA Lab inspector electronically releases parts for use
Weaknesses:
-Multiple inspectors may be required (target 2 people).
-Additional warehouse space needed. Inspector must be able to access parts.
-Data will most likely always be good, even if incoming parts are NG. Suppliers unlikely to send NG data.
-Need to address supplier willingness to send data with each manufacturing lot.
ANY COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE OR ALTERNATE IDEAS ARE APPRECITAED.
Steve
I was hoping to draw on some experiences here regarding receiving inspection for a mid-sized 1st tier auto supplier. I have an opportunity to start from scratch so to speak with our RI but I'm struggling a bit. Are their "best practices" for RI? Is it false to say it will add value since it is a waste generating yet seemingly necessary activity?
Current state is we have one person doing RI, but for lack of a good process (too confusing and no-one is following it, system very broken), the QA lab inspects very few actual parts and no incoming supplier data. It has no impact to weeding out defects before our assy line. As is usual, 20% of our suppliers are 80% of our problem. We have about 70 suppliers, with a total of ~1000 unique parts coming in for current model. I am trying to make sure we do what makes sense, and have a process that will satisfy TS16949.
These are 2 options I'm considering:
----OPTION A.
1. Discontinue RI of actual parts
2. Begin certifying incoming part quality with -data- sent from suppliers to our Supplier Quality Assurance group (SQA). Data to be sent by manufacturing lot per supplier control plan requirements for only critical/significant characteristics. (Approx 70 characteristics over 10 parts per program, ~12 programs total).
Strengths:
-Eliminate RI hard labor cost (1 inspector).
-Eliminate systemic and process sources of confusion between QA lab and SQA groups (simplified process).
-No incoming part handling required .
Weaknesses:
-Significant time investment required of SQA to process, review and manage supplier data. Data must be reviewed in a timely manner (before parts are used).
-Data will most likely always be good, even if incoming parts are NG. Suppliers unlikely to send NG data.
-Need to address supplier willingness to send data with each manufacturing lot.
-Not likely to significantly impact part quality to our and Customer assembly lines.
----OPTION B.
1. Begin certifying incoming part quality with -data- sent from suppliers to QA Lab inspector. Data to be sent by manufacturing lot per control plan requirements for only critical/significant characteristics. (Approx 70 characteristics over 10 parts per program). Inspector to initiate hold documents and assign appropriate SQA if NG stock identified.
2. SQA to identify top 10 worst quality parts for incoming inspection based on history. QA Lab to inspect -parts- per MIL-STD-105E “type” sampling plan methodology. (depending on characteristic, AQL, etc). Audit to occur in QA Lab and warehouse hold area. Inspector to initiate hold documents and assign appropriate SQA if NG stock identified. Top 10 master list for RI to be evaluated by SQA monthly to ensure accuracy.
Strengths:
-Reduce systemic and process sources of confusion between QA lab and SQA groups (simplified process with more emphasis on inspector responsibility).
-Statistically valid sampling plan gives best chance to find defects.
-Ongoing SQA workload should not drastically change. Moderate initial workload to set-up system, low ongoing workload.
-Top 10 worst quality parts on hold, cannot be used until QA Lab inspector electronically releases parts for use
Weaknesses:
-Multiple inspectors may be required (target 2 people).
-Additional warehouse space needed. Inspector must be able to access parts.
-Data will most likely always be good, even if incoming parts are NG. Suppliers unlikely to send NG data.
-Need to address supplier willingness to send data with each manufacturing lot.
ANY COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE OR ALTERNATE IDEAS ARE APPRECITAED.
Steve
but the idea is to reduce dependency (addiction) to receiving inspection and hold the suppliers' "feet to the fire" with regard to their registration/certification and contractual obligations. The OEM's have no patience with poor suppliers; why should a Tier One or Tier Two supplier organization?
