Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo including content not in the forum - Search results with No ads.

What is the difference between Error Proofing and Controls? ISO/IATF 16949 - Control Plans

#11
This was our understanding too, but the auditor expected more than Poka Yoke under Error Proofing column. Now I would like figure out , what other things can be listed under Error Proofing. Is e.g. check the checker an error proofing?
Call the auditor and ask what he was suggesting to add under error proofing column. Share those examples here, so that we can have a discussion.
 

Miner

Forum Moderator
Staff member
Admin
#13
Shigeo Shingo, who popularized the methods, made the following distinction:

Mistake-proofing - done to the PROCESS to prevent mistakes from occurring, stop the error from further processing, warn that the error has occurred, etc.

Error-proofing - done to the DESIGN to prevent assembly errors. Examples include adding design features to prevent upside-down, backwards or reversed assembly; using snap-together features to eliminate fasteners (eliminating missing, incorrect, high/low torque).

However, most people using the terms do not know this distinction and do use them interchangeably. Your auditor may be looking for more of these design controls. The best course of action is ask the auditor what criteria they are using to assess this.
 

Jimmy123

Involved In Discussions
#15
Shigeo Shingo, who popularized the methods, made the following distinction:

Mistake-proofing - done to the PROCESS to prevent mistakes from occurring, stop the error from further processing, warn that the error has occurred, etc.

Error-proofing - done to the DESIGN to prevent assembly errors. Examples include adding design features to prevent upside-down, backwards or reversed assembly; using snap-together features to eliminate fasteners (eliminating missing, incorrect, high/low torque).

However, most people using the terms do not know this distinction and do use them interchangeably. Your auditor may be looking for more of these design controls. The best course of action is ask the auditor what criteria they are using to assess this.
Thanks for the hint, but the auditor can’t be asked. I think I will write more thinks what we have in the control column under error proofing. Because even in the APQP nor in IATF is a clear description of what’s the difference.
 

Bill Levinson

Involved In Discussions
#16
This makes sense, because the part can be error-proofed to prevent assembly mistakes, and the process can be mistake-proofed. I admittedly use them interchangeably because both make the problem impossible as opposed to reliance on worker vigilance. (Whenever a Shingo case study began with language like "vigilance was relied upon to prevent mistakes" we know that mistakes were being made because administrative controls are rarely if ever 100% reliable.) Sometimes they go together; the part has error-proofing features and the process has fixtures that use those features to prevent errors.
 

Jim Wynne

Super Moderator
#17
Question is, why divided in different columns? What’s the reason, or how do I have to handle it In the right way? An auditor told us, we should have more under error proofing. We listed only Poka Yoke solutions in this column.
Thanks for the hint, but the auditor can’t be asked.
What kind of audit? Was this characterized as a nonconformity or was the auditor giving advice? Why can't the auditor be asked?
 
Top Bottom