posted 10 September 1998 07:03 PM               

Another input into continuous improvement would be acting on the FMEA. The FMEA is supposed to be a living document and the expectation is that a company have at least 2 to 3 items being addressed on the FMEA with some sort of improvement plans. Typically (and simplistically) the 3 top RPNs are to have some sort of improvement program.

If you do run charts (or use another statistical analysis technique) and track defects / defectives and act on problems, that is continuous improvement. Typically I see production meetings where trends are identified and improvement projects assigned.

posted 19 November 1998 04:51 PM               

You take corrective action to eliminate a problem that exists. By definition of corrective action, it requires the total elimination of the nonconformance and the future prevention of the nonconformance. Although I used the word prevention here it is not preventive action.

Preventive action is taken to correct a potential nonconformance that has not occurred. Since it has never occurred, you are preventing it from ever happening. A proactive approach. This is not to say that you can not use a methodology used in corrective action as a preventive action. For example, you find that 1 of 3 presses is producing nonconforming parts. You determine that the feeder was not feeding material fast enough to the machine. To take corrective action, you adjust the feeder so that the problem is corrected and can never occur again. Now the other 2 machines have been producing defect free. By adjusting the feeder in the same fashion, you have taken the corrective action for machine 1 and used it as preventive action for the other machines thus preventing any occurrences.

Continuous Improvement can either lower or raise the bar. It depends on which direction brings optimum results. Marc mentioned several good tools. I will use FMEA and Cost of Quality as my examples. FMEAs are performed to detect potential misuses, abuses of products or services. It detects the possibility of a nonconformance (Preventive Action). Here you are raising the bar for increased performance, reliability, quality, etc.. In calculating the Cost of Quality, you pick measurables in Prevention, Appraisal, and Failure costs. For Failure categories, and likely Appraisal, you would like to lower the bar and reduce costs. Now for something a bit screwy. You would like to raise the bar in Prevention, because as you know, an increase in Prevention reduces Failure costs. While these costs go higher, the trade off is the pay off in the savings for the Failure costs.

QS9000 is a decent set of requirements. A bit paper heavy on Customer records, but otherwise pointing organizations in a good direction. The real benefit is to learn and understand the CI tools and apply them companywide rather than just limiting them to the manufacturing environment.

posted 20 November 1998 11:29 AM               

Jennifer: "Am I wrong then in assuming that continuous improvement, as associated with defective parts, can not happen until there are no defective parts?"

Answer: Yes, that particular view is incorrect.

When I give a class in Quality Management, I have a standard question I always ask. "How do you get a car to travel at the same speed?" Typical answers vary, usually along the lines of "cruise control." The solution: Park It. The follow-up question is "How do you produce a perfect product (read zero defects)?" The answer: You Produce Nothing (theory of common cause variation). Then I go on to explain that continuous improvement does not mean "perfect" or "zero defects." It means taking a process that is producing at some level of quality and making it better (higher or lower, depending on the case in hand, as Kevin stated). Not perfect, better. Then you do it again, and again, and again. You approach perfect, but you do not obtain it. Continuous is just that, continuous.

The inverse to continuous improvement I also try to teach is the concept of entropy (From Slater's book). I give it a face (usually very mean and very ugly) and explain it this way:

"Entropy has one function in life. His job is to make things just a little worse today than they were yesterday. The clutter on your desk, the typical kitchen 'junk' drawer, etc. Given time, a little worse adds up to a LOT worse." I give the example of a car. The class is told, "Right now, even as we speak, your car is rusting. You may not see it today, tomorrow or even next week. But, it IS happening. Ten or twenty years from now, it will show up. What do you do to stop it? You wash and wax and wash and wax and wash and wax. Now, apply the same principle to your job. What can YOU do to make things a little better today than they were yesterday? Entropy is a tireless and fearless warrior. He will never stop. You cannot win the war, but you can win battles. YOU must be better. What can you do to stop HIM!"

Anyway, these are my views on continuous improvement. Hope someone can use them, or did I just muddy the water.

Regards,
Don

posted 20 November 1998 01:22 PM               

You bring up a good point (as you normaly do, no mud in my eyes) about "Zero Defects", perfection, and continuous improvement. People become so preoccupied with definitions of exactness that the bulk of the concept is missed. Zero Defects, for example, becomes such an intangible and unattainable goal. It is impossible, so why try to get the impossible? I feel that this is the case because management does not sell the concept correctly. Zero Defects is sold as a destination rather than a direction. It is the direction and the unattainable goal of Zero Defects that creates the continuous improvement journey. A journey towards perfection, but not perfection. This is a good topic for the TQM forum.

QS9000 has the advantage on paper over ISO9000, atleast for now, in that it requires Continuous Improvement. Both, however, require 'effectively' accomplishing the standard requirements which can be construed as continuous improvement. That is what I teach in my organization.

posted 24 November 1998 12:26 PM               

Percision = Exactness
Accuracy = Proximity, within parameters

posted 12 December 1998 07:22 AM               

Hope this helps.....

posted 17 October 2000 09:50 AM               

Does anyone have a stand-alone Continuous Improvement procedure?

Also see: https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000036.html and https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum31/HTML/000023.html

posted 17 October 2000 06:32 PM               

I emailed you a stand alone. If it didn't go through, email me and I will use another account.

Regards,

ASD...

posted 18 October 2000 12:17 PM               

In a way, I guess this wasn't the appropriate forum to post this in. As much as anything else, I'm wondering how many folks have 'stand alone' procedures for PA. But, I was thinking ISO which is not as strict as QS here. I've never used a stand-alone in an ISO registration. Tricky situation coming up. Have a client who will be going through the registration audit with an RAB witness. The registrar has never registered this kind of business (insurance) and so there's going to be a lot of 'checking it twice' going on. But by that token, I'll bet the RAB witness hasn't either.... Hopefully we'll work out all issues during the pre-assessment.

posted 03 November 2000 07:09 PM               

So now I am trying to figure out how to respond. If we had 15 special characteristics would we need a CI project open on each one? If we open a project, then it has to have highest priority, so then we work on it first, close it and have to immediately open a new one.... isn't that a perpetual loop where no other CI projects would get addressed.

What do you think? How have some of you addressed this requirement? I know the best thing would be to get rid of the special characteristics but I doubt I can do that. We have talked about appealing but I am trying to figure out if the standard does not make sense or the interpretation by the auditor. Any ideas on how I should respond?

posted 04 November 2000 06:38 AM               

I have gone through the discussion and I wish to draw attention to some more aspects·..

QS9000 requires· continuous improvements to be extended to product characteristics with an emphasis on special characteristics·

This does not mean only SCs to be considered for CIP and hence does not isolate other characteristics from being considered if it makes a business sense!

Further the improvements have to be in quality, service and price·
( cost elements to be one of the key indicators..)

The examples given in the standard for continuous improvement projects can definitely be used as guidance·Page no.19 of QS9000.

Meeting the required process capability is a basic requirement for such activities to be classified as continuous improvements.
However, there will be many situations which do not have process capability tracking.. e.g. unscheduled down time, machine changeover time. Less than 100% first run capability..etc.

The intent is meet the basic requirements first before the same can be called ãcontinuous improvementä.
Thus, wherever the operations are tracked by SPC studies and are below par, those have to be corrected first to meet the minimum specified requirements and then further improved thereon·

Now to some thoughts on this issue about implementation·

You may have, as an organization, some focus points e.g. excessive cycle time reduction

Now for this, in your company you may have an MIS implemented for tracking the cycle times of various operations.

The data generated over a period can be analysed....

Use various statistical techniques to identify the opportunities for reduction of the same..
Target those processes ..
The continuous improvement project can take birth as above ·.

Now use appropriate statistical tools to decide about the actions required to be implemented·
Implement the actions and use further aspects as what are normally done in case of a continuous improvement project

The balance can be left to the team.
I close here.