hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 7 replies
  • Subscribers 17 subscribers
  • Views 111 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Inspection Standard Opinions

djayne
Hey All,
I'm struggling with a new company with different ideas on quality. Biggest struggle has been with Inspection Standards. I've created one for Toyota and have had to make many revisions and was several months late in submitting because of it. I was taught to include nearly every machined dimension and state how often you will check it and how you will check it. This includes dimensions that may only be checked at N=1, test tooling and annual line audits. Most of the N=1 checks I've seen conducted here are visual, same with test tools and annual line audits don't exist. I had production running up front telling on me because the 1st N=1 part they had me inspecting was already taking me over an hour to complete and I wasn't but halfway through with it (No CMM Program). There are lots of different directions or complaints I could rant about in this but my main question to everyone is how you or your company determines what is on an inspection standard? With no other tool to do a full layout with an N=1 part, I feel this is the tool that fits the purpose. Even the examples Toyota provides states N=1 for some dimensions in the frequency column. This company only wants the dimensions that are checked on daily line checks included on the inspection standard with a generic statement that states : Any item not covered by this inspection standard is per the drawing. I'm at a loss as to how I can begin to ask the QA Lab to start doing annual audits without a tool that specifically tells them what to check and what to check it with. I've over heard other engineers complaining about my beliefs with statements like - "that's stupid, we shouldn't check that radius because it's only going to be what the tool is set up to be". I agree, but who is cutting the part into a section to verify that the tool is meeting the customer requirements? There are many other issues regarding quality assurance here that I don't agree with but this seems to be the most controversial for me here. If it weren't for the company's re-occurances to customers, I'd tend to relax and agree to some point. Am I being too anal? What do you or you company do?

Thank you for any input. Not a whole lot of action on this forum anymore so I hope I can get a few responses. Slight smile
  • Well for us djayne it is determind by Diamond Characteristics that are put on the drawing close to the title block by the customer. this is the maiting part dimensions or the dimensions the customer cares about. I'm not sure what you mean by N=1. This cuts down on dimensions that are out in the wind so to speak. Yes we use to do a full layout on all dimensions for first part inspection, but if time is an issue then it was just the diamond characteristics. Hope this helps
  • Djane,
    Be careful. What you are getting into is an uphill battle: trying to change the quality culture of an established company.

    It's not going to happen if it's you against them, it will only happen if it's you with them.

    It all boils down to mgmt. If they get on board with your more thorough Inspection Standard (which I applaud you for, BTW) then they will mandate the changes and you will implement them with everybody. You may have to create a risk assement cost/benefit presentation showing how skipping little things for convenience now can lead to costly recalls and potential loss of bidding rights in the future.

    If they don't, then you have to decide: live with it... or move on and find a company who doesn't consider quality an irksome impediment to shoving product out the door.
  • What are the contract requirements?? In aerospace we have no choice, management has tryed to change our sampling plan several times and it has always gone back to what the contract requires for sampling.....end of story.
  • Thanks for the responses. Slight smile N=1 would be the 1st piece inspection. When I was interviewing for the job I was asked several questions about PPAP and how I interpreted different documents and tools. My manager told me after I was hired that I was picked because of my experience and they wanted to take quality in a new direction and I fit the bill for that. Now all I ever get when I spend my time preparing a document is the response: "that's not the way we do it here." Like I mentioned before, I could understand that remark if we did not have so many re-occurance issues at the customer. I want to feel comfortable and proud of what we produce and send to our customers. Really the contract of what we are required to do is determined by us and what we say we will do on the PPAP paper work and the customer approves those documents. I've worked in automotive and aerospace in the past and both have always been strict in what is expected out of quality. I've noticed that when a quality issue is detected by one of our customers that quality is the 1st department to begin taking the heat. I've been in quality for many years so I do understand that the finger pointing will always be toward quality but why not take the steps to eliminate those occurances and do the right thing when it comes to quality? I'm just not accustomed to not checking out every dimension on a new part. I've even had instances where I've gotten the customer to modify the print during the launch stages because we could not meet the requirements during setup. Maybe this was just too big of a first step for the company in changing its quality practices. I was hoping to already be purchasing CMM fixtures for mass production parts and measuring with a star probe and probe positions other than A0B0. This could be a big challenge!!!
  • You're going to have to make a big colorful chart that firmly links "the way we do it here" with the history of customer complaints to get through to these people.
  • With this customer just give them the diamond dims. Also lots of pictures on the layout report. Love the pictures.
  • We check everything on first article piece: chamfer, edge break, fillet radii…etc, and anything that related to prior op(s) and subsequence ops….

    Every part must be serialized and record on manufacturing reliability control check list that created by me. This list will be used throughout machining operation (one check list per operation) to record actual finding of first article, last article, SPC (if any) and frequency check by operator(s), I decide the frequency check, critical every part check, minor every 10th part, and anywhere in between. If the operator found a discrepancy on a 10th part check, he/she must go back until he/she find a good one and state why it happened and the problem must be corrected before the next one…

    This system was designed to cut down scrap and rework costs. Inspectors, machinists, each must be responsible for his/her work, each and every recorded dimension must have a stamp next to it, mistake must be crossed out with one line so that it’s readable, initial and date, absolutely no whiteout on any type of paperwork, finger pointing is impossible. I have to enforce these rules; it would not work if I didn’t have the support from the big cheese. This system works really well; our scrap and rework costs are extremely low.

    We also have different systems for incoming machined parts, suppliers, test inspection (pressure, vacuum, electronics...etc), casting and final inspection.
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement