Steve,
I have solved a great many of those concerns with one simple sweep. My QA
people dont inspect product on the line anymore. The typical QC inspection
of which you seem to be referencing has been turned over to manufacturing.
Our QA group performs and audit at the back door and it passes we perform a
quick visual for any obvious defects and ship. If it fails, we identify the
"non-conformities" and quality management reviews them. If we feel the
rejections are valid and rework is required, then the failures are reviewed
with manufacturing management and returned to the responsible department for
rework. If there is any dispute with respect to what is good or bad it is
settled at that time. This employs a basic consept that 1) the operator that
runs a line each and every day should be the best judge of what is good or
bad. If they are not, then they haven't been properly trained or are not the
right person for the job. 2) Line operators and manufacturing engineers tend
to pay a little more attention when it is known that if discrepant product
is producted they will be the ones having to deal with the sorting and
rework of the parts. There are still many companies out there that operate
under the premise that manufacturing the puts the parts thought the
equipment and quality control is responsible to make sure its good.
WRONG!!!! Those days are gone. Those that still operate under this premise
I would bet still fight backlogs and bottlenecks in the inspection areas due
to sorting.
Bottom line... The best person to inspect and determine good or bad is the
person that built it. The old addage that you cant have the same person that
built it inspected because they are under pressure to move product is Bull.
Anyone the believes the quality fuctions at any company are not under the
same pressures to get that product shipped is severely mistaken. The systems
works but..... performance and accuracy of a manufacturing inspection effort
must monitored and controlled by an independant QA and Test function.
Just my thoughts
Ed Cosper
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ryan Grant
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 11:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Rework vs. Quality...
Agent Steve --- In Mission Impossible --- Your assignment, should you choose
to accept it, will be to change the minds of the QA technicians.............
Wow Steve, who was it that said managers believe in Santa Claus because they
believe in magic?
Actually Steve, there is a way $$$$. Get rid of the human. We have similar
problems, not just with QA. For example, a lead that is only 55% on the pad
will invariably get reworked. When I have watched operators inspect some
particularly difficult parts to control, I could not figure out what they
considered a "good" solder joint, and a "bad" solder joint. What was called
bad looked the same as what was call good! It appeared that a certain
number of defects needed to be found, so the requirements would become
stricter or more lax to meet the quota.
On product where we use the HP 5-DX automated X-ray laminography machine, we
do not have a big problem with operators determining what constitutes a good
solder joint or a bad solder joint, because that decision is up to an
engineer and a machine. Furthermore, the engineers and technicians involved
are able to do exactly what you indicated, that is, determine "what did the
machine not catch and subsequently needed to be reworked", and "what
requirement is the machine judging too strictly".
Unfortunately, the machine is very expensive $$$$$$. The cheaper, but not
free, alternate is AOI $$, which will do similar things. (Still expensive)
As far as doing it without capital expenditure and using existing
hominids.............This message will self destruct in 30 seconds......
Ryan G.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen R. Gregory [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 7:04 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [TN] Rework vs. Quality...
>
> Hi ya'll!
>
> I know this is going to be question with no easy answers. What I want to
> ask
> is how do you go about evaluating the real effort that is being expended
> on
> rework or touch-up? Then prove what was necessary, and what wasn't?
>
> To set the stage, the process is mainly "gate-inspection" (I know that's
> not
> desirable) but that's what it is. Past history has been to meet standards
> that match a picture (Martin Marrietta comes to mind). Not whether or not
> touch-up or rework is adding any reliability or value to the finished
> product, or is just make it look like the pictures. (reading between the
> lines;..that quality mindset is THOROUGHLY ingrained here)
>
> So how do you getting a good un-biased snap-shot of what is actually going
> on
> out on the floor, and then go about changing things?
>
> I believe that there is no simple way. It's going to take a lot of time
> and
> effort to take assemblies that are in process, identify them by way of a
> serial number or some other means, have a referee (knowledgeable unbiased
> person) inspect them after each major process to determine what (if any)
> defects are on each assembly, then let them continue on through the
> process
> with the instructions that any rework or touch-up performed on the
> assemblies
> must be documented as accurately and completely as possible as to what
> defects were observed, where, and why they were reworked. Then afterwords,
> an
> assessment done on the whole quality process.
>
> As you may guess, there is some thought going around that we rework more
> things than we need to. I'm just trying to find a way that will be the
> most
> effective, and that will be as unbiased as possible. Also as you may
> guess,
> this subject can get pretty emotional with the QA folks...I butt heads
> every
> single day. I want to find a way that nobody can argue with.
>
> Yes, It does still seem a little silly that I need to secretly strategize
> a
> plan to bring out the realities of the situation in order to convince
> certain
> people to change their philosophies. But I have been asked to do it, and I
> got the the task because they think that I have a magic solution to change
> certain mind-sets, but I don't. I'm asking if any of ya'll have had to go
> through a situation such as this, and what you did to resolve the obvious
> issues...
>
> Thanks everybody!
>
> -Steve Gregory-
>
> ##############################################################
> TechNet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
> ##############################################################
> To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with
> following text in
> the body:
> To subscribe: SUBSCRIBE TECHNET <your full name>
> To unsubscribe: SIGNOFF TECHNET
> ##############################################################
> Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for
> additional
> information.
> If you need assistance - contact Gayatri Sardeshpande at [log in to unmask] or
> 847-509-9700 ext.5365
> ##############################################################
##############################################################
TechNet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
##############################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following
text in
the body:
To subscribe: SUBSCRIBE TECHNET <your full name>
To unsubscribe: SIGNOFF TECHNET
##############################################################
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information.
If you need assistance - contact Gayatri Sardeshpande at [log in to unmask] or
847-509-9700 ext.5365
##############################################################
##############################################################
TechNet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
##############################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the body:
To subscribe: SUBSCRIBE TECHNET <your full name>
To unsubscribe: SIGNOFF TECHNET
##############################################################
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information.
If you need assistance - contact Gayatri Sardeshpande at [log in to unmask] or
847-509-9700 ext.5365
##############################################################
|
