M
We buy plastic cylinders with an outer diameter of 10.000" - 10.005". Our supplier fails to meet this requirement about 30% of the time. However, the parts rarely measure outside the range of 9.998" - 10.007". As long as the material does fall within the 9.998" - 10.007" range we are always able to accept it as nonconforming.
Rather then modify the drawings, the component engineer for these parts keeps attempting to modify our inspection instructions to allow for the discrepancies.
We measure the OD in 4 places on each end using calipers. If any one of these 4 measurements is out of spec then the parts go into our nonconforming material review process. The component engineer wants to modify our inspection instruction to state that if the average of the 4 measurements meets the 10.000" - 10.005" then the parts are acceptable without issue and without documenting the discrepancy.
I need help making my case against this practice. I have argued it every way that I can think of and I'm not getting through. So please, lend your expertise to this issue and help me build a case or if you disagree, please tell me your side so that I can reconsider my position.
Rather then modify the drawings, the component engineer for these parts keeps attempting to modify our inspection instructions to allow for the discrepancies.
We measure the OD in 4 places on each end using calipers. If any one of these 4 measurements is out of spec then the parts go into our nonconforming material review process. The component engineer wants to modify our inspection instruction to state that if the average of the 4 measurements meets the 10.000" - 10.005" then the parts are acceptable without issue and without documenting the discrepancy.
I need help making my case against this practice. I have argued it every way that I can think of and I'm not getting through. So please, lend your expertise to this issue and help me build a case or if you disagree, please tell me your side so that I can reconsider my position.