Help with Quality Control Hiring - Page 2
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 70
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    3,741
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1541
    Likes (Received)
    1770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CarbideBob View Post
    Because if you had a good QC person you would not have had 1,2, and 3 and the lost time.
    Yet this is add on so why pay. Everyone makes good parts, why this added layer.
    Try to put yourself in that guys shoes and the production people hate me.
    The QC guy should work with production and try to give slack. The production people should try to work with QC and be well inside any question.
    It's all a team with one goal.
    Internal disrespect for the other is never helpful. That is what mangers are for.
    Bob
    Meh... not much different than being a programmer IMO. Last job the programmers were mostly "office bound" and we had operators, setup people, and a guy working the tool crib. We programmed, released them to the server, along with setup sheets detailing tools, extensions, zero points, everything you could think of. Well I programmed a job using a 3/4" thread mill, was milling a big pipe thread, 1.25" I believe. Anyhow, setup guy was on vacay so we had a fill in, they grabbed the 1" thread mill (of same pitch) "because they always used that one apparently (I used the 3/4" because it was shorter gage length which I thought would help). Well the operator saw it was cutting too big so he decided to "work on the program" and made the parts to 1.5" pipe thread. Didn't cross their mind to check anything else, just assumed I fucked up. I of course got the blame for it, even though program was right, tool was spelled out correctly, setup sheet DETAILED a 3/4" tool, the works.

    This job it's kind of the same thing. Part gets fucked up, come find out what Mike did wrong. I would sya 95% of the time it is/was a wrong tool loaded, bad pickup, too short ext form holder, whatever, but I'm always first one getting finger pointed at. I make mistakes, not saying I don't, but it is frustrating when someone doesn't read a setup sheet and fucks up and blames you for it. Such is manufacturing I suppose...

    edit: I would also like to add when QC rejects a part, they are mostly not responsible for anything before or after that. Example - QC rejects batch of parts for whatever BS and the job is due. Does QC help get it going? Maybe at a good place they would, but my experience it's like "Oh well too bad you are working all weekend now". This one guy I worked with literally rejected about half the parts then left and went home. No thought to "how do we/can we fix this, do we have mat's around, nope "not my problem" attitude. Ya maybe not their job to run parts, but like you said, teamwork and all...
    Last edited by Mike1974; 11-11-2019 at 03:34 PM. Reason: some more thoughts

  2. Likes Job Shopper TN, Bobw liked this post
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New Jersey
    Posts
    950
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    456
    Likes (Received)
    464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    I asked questions you should have been asking yourself. He might very well be good but in what way is he "good"? Is he finding faults or preventing them?

    BTW where in ISO does it state that you are required to inspect incoming stuff? I've always regarded "Corrective Acton" as the most important part of ISO.
    Wow Gordon, I thought you were a QC god or something. Of course ISO doesn't state you have to inspect all incoming stuff. ISO doesn't state you have to do anything but follow and adhere to the work instructions you create. If your work instructions state that you are required to inspect all incoming stuff, then you better do it. And if you do it, then less Corrective Actions are required. "Say what you do, Do what you say".

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Flushing/Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    7,797
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    391
    Likes (Received)
    6485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LockNut View Post
    Wow Gordon, I thought you were a QC god or something. Of course ISO doesn't state you have to inspect all incoming stuff. ISO doesn't state you have to do anything but follow and adhere to the work instructions you create. If your work instructions state that you are required to inspect all incoming stuff, then you better do it. And if you do it, then less Corrective Actions are required. "Say what you do, Do what you say".

    One of the big major things of ISO and it previous was to eliminate incoming inspections.
    If your ISO documents require incoming inspection somebody missed the boat by a mile in the 80's and you need to hire a better staff.
    There is no excuse for a quality policy like this.
    Bob

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New Jersey
    Posts
    950
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    456
    Likes (Received)
    464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CarbideBob View Post
    One of the big major things of ISO and it previous was to eliminate incoming inspections.
    If your ISO documents require incoming inspection somebody missed the boat by a mile in the 80's and you need to hire a better staff.
    There is no excuse for a quality policy like this.
    Bob

    You are probably right Bob but my response wasn't wasn't based on that. It was based on what ISO stipulates, or doesn't. You set the rules and ISO only makes sure you follow them.

  6. Likes Eric M liked this post
  7. #25
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4030
    Likes (Received)
    12611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LockNut View Post
    You are probably right Bob but my response wasn't wasn't based on that. It was based on what ISO stipulates, or doesn't. You set the rules and ISO only makes sure you follow them.
    I've never really regarded ISO as stipulating anything. It's more recommendations that somehow get turned into demands by those that don't think carefully about what they read. Bit like the religions that read the Bible or other holy script and live by the parts they feel are right.

  8. #26
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4030
    Likes (Received)
    12611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LockNut View Post
    Wow Gordon, I thought you were a QC god or something. Of course ISO doesn't state you have to inspect all incoming stuff. ISO doesn't state you have to do anything but follow and adhere to the work instructions you create. If your work instructions state that you are required to inspect all incoming stuff, then you better do it. And if you do it, then less Corrective Actions are required. "Say what you do, Do what you say".
    Did you read the post I replied to?

    Mistakes do happen and the right corrective action should prevent the same ones happening again. You made a mistake. Read before you post That'd be the corrective action in this case

  9. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New Jersey
    Posts
    950
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    456
    Likes (Received)
    464

    Default

    BTW where in ISO does it state that you are required to inspect incoming stuff?

    Gordon,
    I was only referring to the above statement. No mistake made and I did read the post. That is why I highlighted it. The OP said they inspect all incoming stuff and you made the above statement. ISO only cares about what procedures you put in place. If you require something, anything, you must do it. Whether it's good, bad, efficient, inefficient, it is irrelevant. Just follow your own procedures. I always thought some of our procedures were downright crazy. Like calibrating 1, 2 and 3 gallon containers.

  10. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    3,741
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1541
    Likes (Received)
    1770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LockNut View Post
    BTW where in ISO does it state that you are required to inspect incoming stuff?

    Gordon,
    I was only referring to the above statement. No mistake made and I did read the post. That is why I highlighted it. The OP said they inspect all incoming stuff and you made the above statement. ISO only cares about what procedures you put in place. If you require something, anything, you must do it. Whether it's good, bad, efficient, inefficient, it is irrelevant. Just follow your own procedures. I always thought some of our procedures were downright crazy. Like calibrating 1, 2 and 3 gallon containers.
    Somewhat ironic maybe. The place I worked at that was ISO and AS9100 had the most BS procedures... that they didn't follow apparently. We had something for incoming inspection, but it seemed to boil down to checking paperwork not the actual parts. Maybe that was in the spec, I dunno. I do know I had to re-work some parts one time from a long time supplier. I initially inspected the first 3-5 out of roughly 100 pieces so I could gage what I was doing, well turns out about 1/2 the parts were out of print. I brought it up to the manager of that dept and he said "Oh they will be fine, it's a non critical dimension." I said something like "OK, but some of these dims are out .01-.015" on a +/-.005"... "No it's fine.."



    I think that is part of my bias AGAINST any and all QC. They are a bunch of meat heads willing to pass some junk (at their discretion) and reject others, even if it is only tenth. It really soured any thoughts I have about the whole QC/QA bullshit.

    I think QC really should be done by the operator / setup guy. I get sometimes we get tunnel vision, and that's part of it, I get it. IME, if I have even a question about a dim I will ask someone else to double check me, but that is me...

    edit: On the flip side of that. At the current job we run way too much scrap IMO from not doing a FAI, or something even remotely close. One time I got blamed for something like 100 bad parts for "programming error" I showed them the program, setup sheet, blah blah. Anywho, operator just didn't check the first part and ran them all oversize. I suggested at that point we should buy some "green tags" where the setup guy could write dims in and sign off on it before production ran. NOPE... oh well, can't win them all I guess.
    Last edited by Mike1974; 11-12-2019 at 04:35 PM. Reason: more thoughts

  11. Likes DanielG liked this post
  12. #29
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4030
    Likes (Received)
    12611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LockNut View Post
    BTW where in ISO does it state that you are required to inspect incoming stuff?

    Gordon,
    I was only referring to the above statement. No mistake made and I did read the post. That is why I highlighted it. The OP said they inspect all incoming stuff and you made the above statement. ISO only cares about what procedures you put in place. If you require something, anything, you must do it. Whether it's good, bad, efficient, inefficient, it is irrelevant. Just follow your own procedures. I always thought some of our procedures were downright crazy. Like calibrating 1, 2 and 3 gallon containers.
    My apologies. We agree but took what you wrote as if we didn't

    The day "no practical experience" guys took over ISO consultancy and auditing is the day thing started going downhill.

  13. Likes LockNut liked this post
  14. #30
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4030
    Likes (Received)
    12611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1974 View Post
    Somewhat ironic maybe. The place I worked at that was ISO and AS9100 had the most BS procedures... that they didn't follow apparently. We had something for incoming inspection, but it seemed to boil down to checking paperwork not the actual parts. Maybe that was in the spec, I dunno. I do know I had to re-work some parts one time from a long time supplier. I initially inspected the first 3-5 out of roughly 100 pieces so I could gage what I was doing, well turns out about 1/2 the parts were out of print. I brought it up to the manager of that dept and he said "Oh they will be fine, it's a non critical dimension." I said something like "OK, but some of these dims are out .01-.015" on a +/-.005"... "No it's fine.."
    I've encountered your example more often than I like. I guess it's just too much hard work to change the dimension tolerance in the spec to a realistic tolerance. I hope you detect the sarcasm

    What it does is get some to decide what they regard as critical and non critical. I've never done it but I've often wanted to give some designers a hard kick on their ass.

  15. Likes DanielG liked this post
  16. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Missouri
    Posts
    113
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    56
    Likes (Received)
    76

    Default

    I think QC really should be done by the operator / setup guy. I get sometimes we get tunnel vision, and that's part of it, I get it. IME, if I have even a question about a dim I will ask someone else to double check me, but that is me...
    We mostly check stamped parts and the assemblies they are a part of. (Everything is tiny BTW.)

    WE have a multi level QC/QA system. The operator/die setup person check the first article, and submits them for approval from QA. Some of our runs can be in the millions, so our S.O.P. is that every time there is a coil change, the process is repeated. This is for OUR benefit. It keeps us from burning thru all of our (very expensive) material, with nothing to show for it.

    All of this is spelled out in shop trailers and inspection sheets. This is what we signed on to do according the the ISO crap we filed. We occasionally have audits performed by our customers to make sure we're doing the proper procedures and that nothing has changed in their requirements or preferences with regard to record keeping or procedures.

    We recently installed a vision measurement system that is still in the training stages, but we installed it primarily for INCOMING INSPECTIONS. We really don't want to ruin a product that is 90% finished by welding on a component that is of the wrong material, or has small flaws from the vender that are difficult to see, let alone measure.

    I was under the assumption that if your ISO recipe called for that thing, you had to do that thing. If you change that thing, to this thing, you have to spell out why.

    I'm NOT an ISO professional, so I may be oversimplifying things, if so I apologize, that's just how it was explained to me.

    Flame on Gordon.

  17. #32
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4030
    Likes (Received)
    12611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderjet View Post
    I was under the assumption that if your ISO recipe called for that thing, you had to do that thing. If you change that thing, to this thing, you have to spell out why.
    It is that simple but too many don't think about it when they write the "recipe". Too much detail in a "recipe" tends to eventually bite you on the ass.

  18. Likes Eric M, Bobw liked this post
  19. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Missouri
    Posts
    113
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    56
    Likes (Received)
    76

    Default

    It is that simple but too many don't think about it when they write the "recipe". Too much detail in a "recipe" tends to eventually bite you on the ass.
    Well, at least we can agree on ONE thing^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^

    That's why when I learned what is was .....exactly, The first question I had was:

    Where is that information kept?

    Answer:
    In our safe.......No place else.

  20. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Maine
    Posts
    847
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    87
    Likes (Received)
    396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1974 View Post
    Somewhat ironic maybe. The place I worked at that was ISO and AS9100 had the most BS procedures... that they didn't follow apparently. We had something for incoming inspection, but it seemed to boil down to checking paperwork not the actual parts. Maybe that was in the spec, I dunno. I do know I had to re-work some parts one time from a long time supplier. I initially inspected the first 3-5 out of roughly 100 pieces so I could gage what I was doing, well turns out about 1/2 the parts were out of print. I brought it up to the manager of that dept and he said "Oh they will be fine, it's a non critical dimension." I said something like "OK, but some of these dims are out .01-.015" on a +/-.005"... "No it's fine.."



    I think that is part of my bias AGAINST any and all QC. They are a bunch of meat heads willing to pass some junk (at their discretion) and reject others, even if it is only tenth. It really soured any thoughts I have about the whole QC/QA bullshit.
    That's a never ending problem, but it's an engineering/design problem, not a QC problem.

    The place I used to work, the engineers could sign off "use as is" on parts they designed if they failed inspection. Sometimes this was because a part was overdimensioned, other times it required a careful analysis and a lot of work to determine if we could use it as is or if there would be thousands of dollars in rework.

    In on of the latter cases, we had a weldment come in where one side of it was done poorly, we'd called out something like 1/4 fillet 2-4, but it came back as 2-5. We had to rerun the stress analysis and the saving grace was that the welder had oversized the welds slightly, so 5/16 fillet 2-5 barely passed stress.

    In another of the latter cases, I did "use as is" on an expensive part that was machined undersize. This part would be used next to a grind spacer. Getting a thicker grind spacer made would be cheap, whereas remaking the expensive part would be, well, expensive.

    In the former case, it's a tough call. On the one hand, calling out a part at +-.005 if it only needs +-.020 can lead to rejected parts that would work and where the engineer will just say "use as is." This is rightfully frustrating to the shop and QC people. On the other hand, +-.005 is usually a no brainer tolerance for a part that we know will be CNC'ed. Putting +-.005 is usually a safe option. There is a real cost in time, and therefore money, to figure out what the maximum tolerance for every single dimension is and put it on the print. It's often better/cheaper to deal with the occasional out of tolerance part and then figure out what the tolerance should have been.

  21. #35
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4030
    Likes (Received)
    12611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanielG View Post
    1. That's a never ending problem, but it's an engineering/design problem, not a QC problem.

    2. It's often better/cheaper to deal with the occasional out of tolerance part and then figure out what the tolerance should have been.
    Ad 1. A resounding "YES" to that.

    Ad 2. Yes and no. That's where "corrective action" should come into play. Add the correct tolerance to the drawing and one issue less to deal with next time the item gets made.

    The question that almost never gets asked:

    "Why is it more expensive to change a drawing than have endless discussions on what to do with a part not within spec?" If anyone is in doubt I'm being very ironic/sarcastic.

  22. Likes Bobw, DanielG liked this post
  23. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    303
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    92
    Likes (Received)
    250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    Ad 2. Yes and no. That's where "corrective action" should come into play. Add the correct tolerance to the drawing and one issue less to deal with next time the item gets made.

    The question that almost never gets asked:

    "Why is it more expensive to change a drawing than have endless discussions on what to do with a part not within spec?" If anyone is in doubt I'm being very ironic/sarcastic.
    Well, one reason I can give is certain "machinists" I have worked with seem to revel in using every bit of tolerance they are given. You give them +-.005 every part will be +-.005. So for Daniels example if they went out of tolerance by a thou and .02 would be ok you are good. Give them +-.02 and when the go out it'll be scrap.

    Plus with some of the parts we make the part may function at .02 off, however it will result in a net change of the overall function of the assembly slightly so it is preferred that the part be kept within a .005 range.

  24. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    3,741
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1541
    Likes (Received)
    1770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CAMasochism View Post
    Well, one reason I can give is certain "machinists" I have worked with seem to revel in using every bit of tolerance they are given. You give them +-.005 every part will be +-.005. So for Daniels example if they went out of tolerance by a thou and .02 would be ok you are good. Give them +-.02 and when the go out it'll be scrap.

    Plus with some of the parts we make the part may function at .02 off, however it will result in a net change of the overall function of the assembly slightly so it is preferred that the part be kept within a .005 range.
    Double edged sword. I certainly won't advocate running at the tolerance limit, but a part here and there is fine IMO. I worked with a guy some years ago, very good lathe guy, but he busted his balls trying to get every single part and dimension right at nominal. Fine, but if you are adding hours to every job to do that it becomes a problem.

  25. Likes Bobw, tdmidget liked this post
  26. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    628
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    85
    Likes (Received)
    305

    Default

    It kinda blows my mind how much harder it seems to be to get a deviation signed off in the machining world relative to pharma. We would routinely have a temperature go slightly out of range where we knew it wouldn't affect the impurity profile of the product (maybe due to post-processing, maybe it would only slightly affect yield, etc.) and we'd record and approve the deviation and go about our business. But we'd record it.

    I think that is a big part of the stigma of QC/QA/QS folks; if you don't have a simple process for them to "just ship it" when you have organizational knowledge that the part will work in its application, then that is a management fault. This happened all the time at my last job - "oh, we'll just throw a radius on there it'll be fine" and me saying "well, how do we capture and approve that change, and does the customer need to be involved" got the weirdest looks. I get most job shops aren't making critical application products, but still that scared me.

    We had one part where the old owners had been making it out-of-print for over 20 years! The developed length of a blank was out of tolerance from the customer print but the only way to get a good part. Turns out the customer had just missed a few part numbers when they updated things decades ago and instead of capturing the change, the shop just made them in a way they knew they would not be rejected. When I updated it, because they hadn't captured the actual length needed for in-spec parts after forming ANYWHERE (seriously, not even hand-written on an old production record), we ended up with a pallet of scrap blanks. All they needed to do was send a single email and have a single phone conversation 20 years ago and it would have saved us thousands of dollars and weeks of lead time.

  27. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Country
    SPAIN
    Posts
    3,409
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1903
    Likes (Received)
    1242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    I've never really regarded ISO as stipulating anything. It's more recommendations that somehow get turned into demands by those that don't think carefully about what they read. Bit like the religions that read the Bible or other holy script and live by the parts they feel are right.
    Quote Originally Posted by LockNut View Post
    You are probably right Bob but my response wasn't wasn't based on that. It was based on what ISO stipulates, or doesn't. You set the rules and ISO only makes sure you follow them.
    Not technically correct because ISO has a set of 8 (since 2000 release and also in 2008 release but maybe more in 2015 release?) mandates which are specified that have to be adhered to.
    How you comply to them is mostly up to you, but you have to comply with their written requirements.

  28. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Flushing/Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    7,797
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    391
    Likes (Received)
    6485

    Default

    Those of you who think ISO 9000+ a pain should try IATF 19649. There are 8 chapters or actually books in this. A lot of it your management and office practices as the focus has moved.
    One requirement of the standard, no one is allowed to pass on the first inspection or checkout. Everyone must fail certification the first round.
    This was done because so many in the certify process where also helping with implementation side and letting things slide.

    ISO or IATF does not force you to do incoming inspection but it does make you enforce that your incoming supplier has a working and documented quality system in place.
    If they do not or you have not checked into such then yes you have to inspect the parts.

    A good QC person knows this encyclopedia front to back and where you can and can not move. Yet it rarely pays engineering type pay.
    Part inspectors are a different deal and maybe that is all the OP needs. This can be taught to very low level worker bees.
    Bob


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •