Inspection Standard Opinions

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.

Parents

djayne over 13 years ago

Thanks for the responses. 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!!!
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Sign in to reply

Cancel

Reply

djayne over 13 years ago

Thanks for the responses. 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!!!
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Sign in to reply

Cancel

Children

No Data