资料下载
×
5Step Sanity Check.pdf
消耗积分:3 |
格式:rar |
大小:433 |
2009-07-30
张伟
分享资料个
I noted over a period of years, a persistent reported problem in supplier defect data. One of the top 5 problems every month
was related to incorrect part marking. The rejection may have been called ‘wrong part received’, ‘wrong part number sent’,
‘wrong PO number’, ‘paperwork does not match part’, or other. This rejection category was often the #1 supplier defect
month-to-month, it was always in the top 5, and was typically the #1 defect code when data was totaled for the year. It did
not matter what quality system was in place at the suppliers (ISO, QS, MIL, or other) if a supplier had the problem at all it
was typically a repeat problem.
Supplier Corrective actions had been ineffective at stopping the problem and I was at a loss as to what to do to significantly
reduce the number of occurrences. The typical SCAR (Supplier Corrective Action Request) reply was that the supplier had
instructions in place to check the part number and revision of the part, they attributed the problem to operator error, mixed
paperwork, mixed factory order packets, etc. and took ‘action’ to prevent the problem. However, the problem persisted, it
would typically dip for a time when a concerted effort was directed at the supplier, but it seemed to always come back.
Finally, I took the time to do some benchmarking and examined data to find suppliers that did not have problems with
shipping us the wrong part number. In some cases it may have been purely a result of ‘luck’ or dedicated personnel that was
the cause of not shipping us wrong part number since I could find no significant difference in their systems as compared to
others. I finally came across a supplier that had taken effective corrective action a couple of years before and had eliminated
the problem. Both their data and mine showed that they had not had a problem with mis-marked parts for the two years
since. It had become simply a non-issue for them. I had a chance to visit their facility and look closely at their method.
They had been using the method so long that they were curious that I would find it interesting.
was related to incorrect part marking. The rejection may have been called ‘wrong part received’, ‘wrong part number sent’,
‘wrong PO number’, ‘paperwork does not match part’, or other. This rejection category was often the #1 supplier defect
month-to-month, it was always in the top 5, and was typically the #1 defect code when data was totaled for the year. It did
not matter what quality system was in place at the suppliers (ISO, QS, MIL, or other) if a supplier had the problem at all it
was typically a repeat problem.
Supplier Corrective actions had been ineffective at stopping the problem and I was at a loss as to what to do to significantly
reduce the number of occurrences. The typical SCAR (Supplier Corrective Action Request) reply was that the supplier had
instructions in place to check the part number and revision of the part, they attributed the problem to operator error, mixed
paperwork, mixed factory order packets, etc. and took ‘action’ to prevent the problem. However, the problem persisted, it
would typically dip for a time when a concerted effort was directed at the supplier, but it seemed to always come back.
Finally, I took the time to do some benchmarking and examined data to find suppliers that did not have problems with
shipping us the wrong part number. In some cases it may have been purely a result of ‘luck’ or dedicated personnel that was
the cause of not shipping us wrong part number since I could find no significant difference in their systems as compared to
others. I finally came across a supplier that had taken effective corrective action a couple of years before and had eliminated
the problem. Both their data and mine showed that they had not had a problem with mis-marked parts for the two years
since. It had become simply a non-issue for them. I had a chance to visit their facility and look closely at their method.
They had been using the method so long that they were curious that I would find it interesting.
声明：本文内容及配图由入驻作者撰写或者入驻合作网站授权转载。文章观点仅代表作者本人，不代表电子发烧友网立场。文章及其配图仅供工程师学习之用，如有内容侵权或者其他违规问题，请联系本站处理。 举报投诉
评论(0)
发评论
- 相关下载
- 相关文章
