|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums 
|
|
|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums
|
The New Elsmar Cove Forums
|
 The New Elsmar Cove Forums
 Nonconformance and Corrective Action Systems
 Prioritized Reduction Plans
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Prioritized Reduction Plans |
|
Jim Evans Forum Contributor Posts: 45 |
posted 10 April 2001 10:49 AM
   
What is the intent of section 4.13.2.1 Prioritized Reduction Plans: a) when multiple nonconforming product exists to quantify and prioritize which items are attended to first, OR b) to quantify nonconforming product Pareto style and set priorites as to reducing nonconformances by type (e.g. 75% are for undersize condition, 20% for oversize condition, 5% for orientation). I thought I knew this but I have now heard it explained both ways. Which way is the correct interpretation? Jim IP: Logged |
|
Al Dyer Forum Wizard Posts: 622 |
posted 10 April 2001 05:04 PM
I think they go hand in hand. Once you prioritize by part number you need to define what aspects are causing the dropout (scrap). This would typically be done with a Pareto, C, or U chart. The type of chart would depend on your company and what works for you. The type of thought process defined by Ford QOS methodology. I think there are some QOS posts in the FTP section in the Cove. ASD... IP: Logged |
All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
Hop to: |
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!
Main Site Search 
