iSixSigma

Opinion: Value Added Incoming Inspection

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Opinion: Value Added Incoming Inspection

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #52916

    Sah
    Member

    Thoughts from the iSixSigma Community are welcome:When has incoming inspection added value, in your
    experience? Guidelines for implementing an effective and efficient
    incoming inspection program?

    0
    #186791

    S
    Participant

    Dear Student.
    In business there is always risk. There is consumer risk and Manufacturers Risk. The Risk evaluation is done through FMEA.
    To minimize risk the alfa should be in fraction or close to zero. This is possible only when specification width to process width ratio is >2.
    To achieve this a strategy is reduction in process variation. Whenever out put of process ( Dimension or characteristic) is strongly co-related we can select -sort the input.( Inspection)
    The Capability measure of output will reflect both efficiency and effectiveness. The Economics based on cost of quality will reflect in economics of inspection. ( If External cost is higher than iternal cost the inspection is advantageous but for short term).
    In lean sixsigma any inspection-sorting is NV( non value added operation) waste to be eliminated in long term.
     
     

    0
    #186803

    Ron
    Member

    By definition Inspections will never be considered a value added activity. Now that I made a lot of friends let me go on…
    Value is in the eye of the customer..what they are willingto pay for. Since qualit of products and services is expected by the customer they may not be willing to pay extra for it.
    However, as we all know allowing defective product into our manufacturing systems can shut down a facility or a customer. So receiving inspection is a required “Waste” until such time as you have eliminated the need for it.  This comment may be applied for many non-value added functions.
     

    0
    #186809

    Don Strayer
    Participant

    To be value added, a step must pass three tests:  1.) It changes the output (product or service).  2.) The change is desired by the customer (has value to the customer).  3.) It’s done right the first time (An instance of the step/operation that results in scrap, rework, repair, or defect passed on to the next step is not value added).  Inspection is never value added since all it does is detect 3.
    However, we must consider the concept of “necessary waste.”  If we don’t know the quality of the input or if the frequency of defects has been known to exceed specifications (Ideally 3.4 or fewer per million) then incoming inspection is necessary waste.  The only “value” in doing this is in preventing passing defective inputs to the next step, where the cost increases, providing data to the supplier to show that they must do better, and to show management that you might need a better supplier.  This should not be confused with value added.  It’s wasteful and we want to stop doing it as soon as the COPQ that would result from input defects is less than the cost of inspection.
    As for guidelines, do everything QC normally does but never forget that your goal is to eliminate the need to keep doing it.

    0
    #186811

    Mikel
    Member

    So I should incur this necessary waste if my defect rate is higher than
    3.4 per million?

    0
    #186814

    Severino
    Participant

    It never adds value.  Don’t do it. Hire a good supply chain management team and get them out in the field at your suppliers (starting with key suppliers) assessing risk and instituting proper controls.  If you feel inspection is necessary at this juncture, qualify a 3rd party inspection service and make your suppliers pay for and schedule the inspections at their facility.  Never bring inspection in house.

    0
    #186815

    StuW
    Member

    The more the inherent risks are to YOUR business, the more it is incumbent upon your organization to take steps to avoid these defects.  As an example, in the semiconductor business many issues attributable to our suppliers such as photoresists, silicon substrates, or gasses used will be blamed on our company.  In fact, we had a supplier problem with a photoresist shipment which caused some outgoing issues on our product.  Our customers did not want to hear that our analysis showed that this was due to an incoming materials issue.  
    In these situations, you need to setup proactive supplier programs, which might include some temporary inspections.  The aim of the program is to push for improvements in your supply chain as has been suggested in other replies.   The temporary inspections should Pareto the types, and quantities, of defects observed in order to assist your organization in prioritizing the improvements needed for your products.    Once the supplier is on-board, and quality improves, then the inspections can cease.   Suppliers unwilling, or unable, to cooperate should be replaced in order to improve your company’s quality.  

    0
    #186837

    AB
    Participant

    Hi
    this mean if we do internal or external inspection for processes  in service like healthcare  ( example  when we are trying to get certified by ISO or even be accrideted by JACHO ) this will be non value added and should be stooped   please tell me if this right or not

    0
    #186838

    docdigit
    Participant

    My “opinion” is that this is a lot like ‘value added containment’ which is just another way of saying sorting. My question is, “Why am I being my suppliers’ final inspection?” That, at least to me, is exactly what any Incoming Inspection boils down to. Good sourcing is a much better route.

    0
    #186840

    n patel
    Participant

    Yes a QC effort, by definition (inspection) is a non-
    value added function. By incorporating suitable
    systems for tracking the product, the time devoted to
    it can & should be substantially decreased. However,
    the basic function should not be eliminated as that is
    your insurance against possible repairs & re-work down
    your own production line.

    0
    #186856

    Severino
    Participant

    You’re wrong.  The goal should always be to eliminate it, but it is even more preferential to never start it in the first place.  Once it has worked its way into your company it ends up instituionalized and takes an act of congress to rid your company of this infectious waste. 

    0
Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.