QMS Overload
- Thread starter DesantisJ
- Start date
Who said "crappy" parts? You.
I'm not convinced risk is there, either, that's why I said "it depends". But it should be considered.
Sometimes the risk comes from unexpected places. Not every nonconforming part has the risk to life and subsequent notoriety of the 737 door that blew out or the inferior steel used on navy subs of a few years back.
Consider a widget built and sold for years with some percentage slightly out of spec but the Production Mgr and QA Manager felt that "little NC" shouldn't cause a late delivery so they just repeatedly fudged the data and shipped them. No actual harm came to anyone. But one day a disgruntled former employee blows the whistle and the reputation of the company is destroyed in no time flat. Any risk there?
That's what I am saying. If OP starts red tagging everything and shuts the place down, he's going to have issues. Focus on the big ones first.
I have been using the term "non-conformance" a bit loosely. Also, my background is more in the manufacturing field than documentation. But I also have plenty of experience in writing, reviewing, and auditing process documentation.
I have been using the term "non-conformance" to mean failed dimensional inspection, functional testing, and also customer returns (typically in the form of functional issues).
I am confident that the parts we manufacture are not "crappy". Our standard 3 decimal tolerancing is ±.002", and many of our detail parts have flatness and parallelism callouts of .0001. As you can guess, it is very difficult to machine to these tight of tolerances and my inspector ends up failing upwards of 80%, but dimensional rejections have been accepted or rejected by the manufacturing manager based on his tribal knowledge of what can work further down. In my mind, this is issue number 1 to correct and it will cause production to slow down if dispositions take too long, and also cause more work for engineering to correct documents. But I would rather spend a few hours fixing the cause than continue doing the same things and expecting different results.
I also want to say, thank you all. Having a place for me to talk these things out is such a blessing. It really helps to hear that I need to stop thinking "ISO certified" and instead just focus on needs.
I have been using the term "non-conformance" to mean failed dimensional inspection, functional testing, and also customer returns (typically in the form of functional issues).
I am confident that the parts we manufacture are not "crappy". Our standard 3 decimal tolerancing is ±.002", and many of our detail parts have flatness and parallelism callouts of .0001. As you can guess, it is very difficult to machine to these tight of tolerances and my inspector ends up failing upwards of 80%, but dimensional rejections have been accepted or rejected by the manufacturing manager based on his tribal knowledge of what can work further down. In my mind, this is issue number 1 to correct and it will cause production to slow down if dispositions take too long, and also cause more work for engineering to correct documents. But I would rather spend a few hours fixing the cause than continue doing the same things and expecting different results.
I also want to say, thank you all. Having a place for me to talk these things out is such a blessing. It really helps to hear that I need to stop thinking "ISO certified" and instead just focus on needs.
Are these internal specifications rather than customer specifications? If so, maybe some loosening of the internal specifications is in order.
First "crappy" is a term of art. And my point is your parts seem to be working good enough to keep you in business, so there's that. But youre manufacturing manager's situation is exactly what I am talking about. The part may be "no good" but it's actually usable. Conceivably, you could handle all of those first -- revise the prints to expand the .0001 flatness without stopping a thing. Good luck.
These are internal specifications. But we do have a specific customer that requires parallelism of .05mm at the top level, so I am left to assume that requirement was passed along to all other similar products. Unfortunately, I am also left with no evidence that past shipments have met this requirement, as first article inspections are only performed upon customer request.
Sounds like you might want to start with a basic inspection program -- setup, in-process, and final. Keeping it as simple as possible, of course.
outdoorsNW
Quite Involved in Discussions
Focus on the actual requirements. Just because one part has a .05mm requirement does not mean others do. If you check, you may find many "nonconforming" parts may conform to the requirements for the specific part. Even so, you probably should proceed with care and make sure your customer has not gotten used to you always delivering better than the print requires and will be upset if you start delivering parts using more of the allowed tolerance range.
mindytanner
Starting to get Involved
You start at his feet, of course! Then he can't get away!!
The best way to start is keep a notebook & pen with you everywhere you go. Every time someone preforms a task, ask them how they do it, and document it. Example, contact a Supplier to inform them of defective material. Then you document it in some way. I prefer flow charts. Next, compare what is being done to what the standard requires. This will help you build a gap audit while also learning the processes at your new company. I started doing that at my job. The plant was slated for closure. Senior leadership changed and the facility did not close. However, they had let their certificate expire. I show up and there is no evidence of a QMS so, rather than totally recreate the wheel, this is what I am doing. Some of these team members have been here doing same thing for over 25 years. If something is required but not being done, I only have to ask them to change that one thing. That is a much easier sell than to totally write a QMS just from the standard.
