IATF16949 10.2.4 Challenge parts use in Error Proof

Hello everone
A product is manually assembled from parts A, B, and C, and CCD is used to detect in order to prevent missing parts, as a means of error proofing. But all three parts are very obvious, do we need to make challenge parts for regular error-proof failure checks? At present, we are using the operator to make temporary missing parts (human control) before each shift to detect and record, looking forward to your valuable comments, thank you!

What is CCD? Please clarify and you will receive input from the Cove.

As a note - if your rely on human control soon or later your organisation will be in trouble.

I believe this use of CCD refers to a Charge-Coupled Device used in a vision system such as Cognex, Keyence, etc.

toniriazor said:

What is CCD? Please clarify and you will receive input from the Cove.

As a note - if your rely on human control soon or later your organisation will be in trouble.

Click to expand...

What is CCD? Please clarify and you will receive input from the Cove.
-Thank you for your reply, it's my mistake, CCD is the use of industrial cameras for visual inspection.

As a note - if your rely on human control soon or later your organisation will be in trouble
-That's where I think there's a problem, and now I'm using this unreliable way to verify error-proofing in the field, but I don't have a basis for them to rectify it.Is there sufficient documentation to indicate whether the error-proofing device must use challenge parts? Even if the error-proofing object is very simple (with or without assembly)？

Best regard!

Miner said:

I believe this use of CCD refers to a Charge-Coupled Device used in a vision system such as Cognex, Keyence, etc.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply,you are right!

Reshadow said:

What is CCD? Please clarify and you will receive input from the Cove.
-Thank you for your reply, it's my mistake, CCD is the use of industrial cameras for visual inspection.

As a note - if your rely on human control soon or later your organisation will be in trouble
-That's where I think there's a problem, and now I'm using this unreliable way to verify error-proofing in the field, but I don't have a basis for them to rectify it.Is there sufficient documentation to indicate whether the error-proofing device must use challenge parts? Even if the error-proofing object is very simple (with or without assembly)？

Best regard!

Click to expand...

Back to your original questions - to adhere to clause 10.2.4 you have to have in place the product with some of the product characteristics NOK (missing part, wrong component, wrong color, wrong fuse, incorrect insertion and etc.) and test it to verify that your error-proofing device is able to detect these missing product characteristics. Additionally you have to maintain it well, update when necessary (in case of Design change).