S
snmurray
...being proactive and committing fraud? Is it ever appropriate for a quality inspector to grind, pound, file, or otherwise alter/modify a part to get it to meet drawing requirements/pass inspection?
D
db
First of all, welcome to the Cove!
It could be normal, practical and ethical for inspectors to correct defects, providing that they are working within their span of authority. If the organization feels the inspectors are the best to make the call, then okay. However, if they are working outside of their roles and responsibilities, then there is a problem.
A far as fraud.... the only time I could think that would be an issue, is if the inspectors are making repairs and the product is not what it would be had it been manufactured correctly and the inspectors are saying something other than that.
It could be normal, practical and ethical for inspectors to correct defects, providing that they are working within their span of authority. If the organization feels the inspectors are the best to make the call, then okay. However, if they are working outside of their roles and responsibilities, then there is a problem.
A far as fraud.... the only time I could think that would be an issue, is if the inspectors are making repairs and the product is not what it would be had it been manufactured correctly and the inspectors are saying something other than that.
Hi - welcome to the cove.
It's all dependant on the organization.
There are plenty of companys that have no QC Department per se and fabricators/operators/whatever check their own work. Thus they can can make mods on the fly to get a conforming part.
But I bet that's probably a situation for lower output operations.
My company is higher output and has a distinct QC operation. We will pitch in and help machine operators make minor correction, say removing a burr, in order get the parts through and not sit on a DMR shelf. But it will be documted.
But I also have to ask - how is making a conforming part fraud?
It's all dependant on the organization.
There are plenty of companys that have no QC Department per se and fabricators/operators/whatever check their own work. Thus they can can make mods on the fly to get a conforming part.
But I bet that's probably a situation for lower output operations.
My company is higher output and has a distinct QC operation. We will pitch in and help machine operators make minor correction, say removing a burr, in order get the parts through and not sit on a DMR shelf. But it will be documted.
But I also have to ask - how is making a conforming part fraud?
S
snmurray
Yes, part of the problem is clearly defined roles within the organization.
If the "alleged" inspector was performing the task on nuts and bolts it would be one thing. However, that is not the case...about as far at the other end of the spectrum as you can imagine.
The two problems I can think of are qualifications for the operation and documentation, which neither are in play.
The other issue here is the common practice we have of tasking quality to clean up items that should have been handled prior to inspection. I can understand doing what needs to be done to get the part through inspection but at what point do you yank the crutch. What tends to happen is "oh this one is really hot can we push it through..." which = huge risk!!!
If the "alleged" inspector was performing the task on nuts and bolts it would be one thing. However, that is not the case...about as far at the other end of the spectrum as you can imagine.
The two problems I can think of are qualifications for the operation and documentation, which neither are in play.
The other issue here is the common practice we have of tasking quality to clean up items that should have been handled prior to inspection. I can understand doing what needs to be done to get the part through inspection but at what point do you yank the crutch. What tends to happen is "oh this one is really hot can we push it through..." which = huge risk!!!
C
Craig H.
It sounds like you might be "inspecting in" quality, which is rarely a good idea. The operators should be the "experts" at their operation, yet a presumably less "expert" inspector is tasked to fix a problem left by an "expert". Seems problematic to me.
Also, it seems we have been thinking of 100% inspection. If a sample is being altered so a whole lot can be accepted, I would drop whatever you are doing and run. Quickly.
Also, it seems we have been thinking of 100% inspection. If a sample is being altered so a whole lot can be accepted, I would drop whatever you are doing and run. Quickly.
I proabably would not use such words to describe the situation - fraud has some nasty overtones....
However, the process should be that the inspector inspects and if they find defects, should record the nature/quantity etc and report the affected items, identify them and, if at all possible, ensure they can't be used until dispositioned.
The inspector certainly shouldn't be doing anything to 'rework' the items, unless it has been authorized by an appropriate memebr of management. I've seen this happen before and the inspector is putting the organization at some risk........
But, that's why you have formal systems and procedures to deal with 'control of non-conforming product'....
depending on the industry "grinding, pounding, filing, or otherwise altering/modifying a part to get it to meet drawing requirements/pass inspection" is a contractual violation and can lead to legal consequences. These actions are typically considered "repair"; they may bring the part into dimensional compliance but are outside of the approved process for creatign the feature or dimension and can induce additional stresses or otherwise weaken the integrity of the part. If you are in the Aerospace and Defense industries, this could be legal trouble and considered fraud if you haven't documetned the occurences and received permission from your customer to take such actions.
If you aren't in one of the affected industries, you might still consider teh affect of these additional stresses on your parts. You may be creating defects (in the legal sense of the word) that open you up to legal action shoudl a product failure resulting from this defect injure someone, etc. (of course you may not be in such an industry either...)
These caveats have nothing to do with the appropriateness of an inspector perfroming such work. That is an internal business decision regarding process capability, hidden wastes and continual improvement...
S
snmurray
I carefully selected the word fraud, your response supports my reasoning. This is the tip of the ice burg; perhaps the real issue here is the ethical dilemma(s) I am facing with individuals within my own department and certainly those outside the department.
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you suggesting there is a criminal act going on within your organization? If so, there are channels to follow and laws to protect you when bringing this to the authorities attention
C
Craig H.
There is a thread about wistleblowers here at the Cove that you should read if you decide to go that route. BE VERY CAREFUL!!!!!
