I once worked for a company that drove this home well. We'd do 5Ys on all escapes, both from the perspective of "what caused the issue", and "how did we miss the failure and let it out?" That approach stuck with me and comes to mind when thinking QC vs QA.
This video is an eye opener for me about the different ways of measuring quality. It is less wasteful and much more cost effective to have a great process outline for what you produce or service. Also, focusing on only detecting defective outcomes can cause you to lose the ability to predict and prevent risk in the production process.
“You don’t have the time to do it right the first time but you have the time to do it over again” is something I used to hear growing up. This video made me think of that that and that root causes should be the main focus.
I started at my company almost 20 years ago in the QC department, I was surprise when they explained to me all the different procedures of inspection that my work had (I bet they have more now, I left that department 18 years ago), first piece inspection, in-line inspection, and more.
This makes complete sense! If your process doesn't allow defects then there is less rework and no need to be reactive. Also, I realized what my company calls Quality Assurance is actually Quality Control.
Throughout my career I have always had the mindset of inspecting parts until you find a non-conformance, and then start your root cause analysis. This video opened my eyes to thought of finding issues before they happen. This would save the company a lot of money and also make production more efficient.
Adam, your approach until now is very common; until you realize that you are only fixing past defects but not fixing future products, which can only be done using LSS principles.
This is a great break down of reactive processes. The only way to root cause an issue is to be proactive and begin asking the 5 why's. You really need to dig deep and avoid surface level answers when seeking the root cause of an issue.
Thank you for explaining the past and current ways of checking for defects and how checking quality intermittently decreases the amount of defects and how improving the processes that create the defects is an even better way...to be explained in another informative video!!!
Early detection is crucial to minimizing customer impact, costs and time lost. It's so much easier to make up time, if you are only a portion of the lead-time behind due to a quality issue than it is to find the issue at final inspection and have to expedite replacements through the entire process which could be weeks or even months.
This is a great foundation for the evolution of problem solving by looking at the defects at the end of the process, to early on in the process, and then to review the process itself to take a proactive approach. I also like the breakdown of QC vs. QA and this clarification will allow me to go back to my company to analyze our setup in this area.
Our company operated for years w/ zero inspection. Finally added final inspection prior to shipping. May have stopped escapes to the customer, but caused a lot of rework ops. Certain jobs now warrant in process insp ops, but most are final insp.-finally moved from shipping clerk to quality. I'm still not convinced we analyze the data we collect (I may be incorrect), but I have argued for years the in-process inspection we forced upon the machine operators was not as effective as it should have been. In most cases never looked at by mgmt unless there was a problem reported by a customer... at that point its like looking at a may and saying, 'yep, here's where the ship sank'. Found many cases where insp reports were manipulated ...'pencil whipping' as our shop would call it.
I agree with Kyle on QA and QC being ingrained in our thinking. I have a long quality career and have done both QA and QC. It was always frustrating to reject bad items...especially when it seemed to be similar defects over and over. We always seemed to be poking at symptoms rather than correcting the root cause problem.
Kenneth McKillip excellent insight. I especially like when you say that QC knew those defects were happening repeatedly. And that it was frustrating. This is the great waste of human potential, energy and aspirations.
Interested to see the next video and understand how do you go upstream on some of these issues. Communicating across departments is critical and at times, the only way to solve issues.
One thing to add to the reasons not use these quality assurance methods is adding the costs of the actual inspecting at each step. The delay in cycle times and the extra labor costs would add costs to the part.
Makes sense to look at root cause versus QA cycle of testing and rework but wonder if an initial QA is needed in order to determine the root cause and minimize future cycles
I like how this discusses the differences between QC and QA, where QC likes to avoid bad shipments to avoid bad deliveries, while QA seeks inspection earlier to avoid material to be scrapped
I experienced a great example of rework causing problems in the production line today. Couple parts our supplier provided had incorrect dimensions on the the cover of a medical device. This caused the cover not to mate as it is suppose to. A small mistake in the tolerance caused the production to stop, rework done on the specific part, and then 100% inspections on any upcoming shipments from the supplier. As a result, a money, time, and labor was not used efficiently.
This is a very interesting video and will make me think twice about every throwing a "checklist" at a quality error. QC and QA are so engrained in our thinking because getting to the root cause of the deficiency and fixing it is much more difficult than just doing an inspection to make sure there are no defects before delivering the product.
Good interim video explaining QC and QA...and that even QA with the rework identified before last step isn't addressing root cause of what is going wrong to necessitate rework.
Good video! Although Quality assurance helps prevent the product/service reaching the end before having to be reworked it still isn't cost effective because it doesn't eliminate the root problem.
Beyond the fact that quality control and quality assurance being necessary, they are reactive measures, and to be about to incorporate them in a way that is less reactive is interesting.
Root cause analysis is totally different from traditional qc/qa. Q/C is always chasing the mistakes, root cause analysis finds where preemptive actions can improve outcomes.
This video made me aware of the waste of multiple resources assigned to inspect partial or finished products rather than to fix the root cause of the poor quality.
Maria, exactly. Putting people to prevent errors instead of fixing defects would be more effective, would use those people's skills more fully, and they would be happier that they are doing a positive job, not just avoiding negative results.
We try to strive for the middle all the time in my line of work. There is definitely times where are products have been brought back because of not meeting specs
Good video. It was really eye opening. It made a lot of sense to add inspection points at the end of a cycle or at each cycle. But getting at the root cause is supreme.
I thought it was interested on how it was said that QC/QA focus on product that has already been completed which can be problematic. I've always thought about QC as being part of the process and not seen strictly as a department that only plays a role at the end.
Husain, to be clear, what videos trying to do is that just adding inspection points at the end of every cycle will only help if these leads to an improvement of the process itself I supposed to simply trying to catch errors over and over. The focus should be on the process, not only on the product.
While I agree that QA is a better solution than QC to catch issues and assure "good" parts, excessive inspection steps can prove ineffective due to cost/saving realization in the process.
This video really makes me question why QC & QA are SEPERATED from production. The cost of inspection and rework from an internal view is one thing to consider. However, the cost of an upset customer that no longer wants to do business with you because of the continuous cycle of rework should be the external view to be considered first. Yet, the vicious cycle continues.
I defiantly never looked at it this way. I have worked as a quality inspector before and it was very problematic when an issue was found at the end of the process. It would be so much easier do design the issues out of the process instead of catching them down the line.
QC vs QA. Probably helps in the DEFINE stage of DMAIC. Both tools are a great way to start reducing defects and providing better products for your customer. Using these two methods, you can locate the STEP(s) in the process that are leading to your defective product. In order to truly begin to reduce the defects, though, you need to dive further into that particular step to see why the part is coming out defective.
Homero Cardoso, This quality control method is similar at the one we use in our company, In the department that I work we always are receiving bad products to rework from other departments. I always ask the quality engineer why instead of having to rework products all the time don't go and look for the root cause of the problem. Many of the quality issues are always the same.
This is great. I think we need to focus our attention on root causes, as I am under the impression we have fallen in a trap of inspection and rework- reactive.
Catching stuff up front is key to reducing issues further down the road. When the issue is caught at the last step, it is too late. You are now having to have difficult conversations with an angry customer about how they are not getting their product and how they won't get it for weeks.
There needs to be root cause analysis done when defects are identified to improve the process. Quality Assurance can make identifying the root cause easier because you are catching the defect before it gets all the way through the process.
In high capacity production lines and tight production schedules, the problem becomes apparent when the rework starts piling up higher and higher. In addition to trying to figure out where the deviation is coming from, now you have to also figure out when you could fit the rework activity in to your busy schedule. If you can't fit the action of rework back in to the schedule, all the defective product now becomes scrap. Nobody likes scrap. Oh yeah, and if there are labor shortages in your company, there won't be enough manpower to do the rework, even if you have the time for it in your production schedule. That is another reason to focus the production process on staying within the product specifications.
QC and QA are implemented to double check or ensure the product is good after a process. This means there is a known flaw in the process or design that is not being addressed that causes distrust. The producing itself should be designed to be on target every time and predictable. Can there be a QA on a process instead of the product, to ensure we are operating in ways that produce on target instead of focusing on checking? What do you do if the problem causing the defects can't be fixed due to financial or knowledge restrictions?
Good points, Nick. It's better to fix the production process than to be fixing the products all the time. The "QA on the process" is the process monitoring that you do using control charts - we'll talk about it next week - that let's you see whether a process is becoming unstable and will likely produce errors. And good comments on the distrust between departments -- later we will watch a video titled "the 3 nevers" that has to do with trust.
Understanding the defects of a possible production and how to eliminate them will always help drive success. Quality control is always a valuable step but can be time staking. Its more effective to check quality throughout the process as discussed in the video.
Working in a production role we deal with quality issues all the time. If it wasn't for a standard procedure in each companies structured departments our promise to service quality product would suffer.
It makes sense to inspect and improve the production of the product than to inspect and rework the product itself. This will help keep the mistakes from continuing to happen.
In the QA example, when "rework" is used, do you simply mean "re-run"(without any change)? I ask because when I personally think of rework I automatically assume that in "fixing" the defect that I am fixing the process that caused that defect at the same time. So, I'm wondering if I have a different understanding of "rework" to the way it's used in this scenario. (Or maybe I'm already advanced beyond QA, lol). To just "rework"/re-run the work, without fixing the root cause of the problem is just wasteful in time, materials, money. etc. and is relying on luck ("fingers crossed it doesn't happen again").
Rework is fixing the defective product by doing the initial tasks again but better, with more care. Fixing the process is usually more time-consuming, involves more resources and requires permission from the area lead and adjacent area leads; plus to do it right a team must be setup and data must be collected ... it takes more effort! Granted. But it also fixes the recurring defects that always lead to more rework.
Being reactive vs proactive is costly and does not provide solutions. I think doing a random sample of quality control/assurance at different times may be justified or in the test phase.
Instead of the focus being quality control and quality assurance which is at the end of the process, steps should be implemented earlier into the process to help catch these issues before the product is finalized, because then that could lead to loss of product, lead time, customer receiving bad parts, rework and other costly things that would not benefit a company
In the end it's the customer and his/her/their full satisfaction that matters. By searching for and seeking out the root causes of any process issues we (any organization) are exponentially benefiting ourselves by cutting down on rework, scrapped product, etc.
using a QC and QA approach to quality is a reactive process and can cause a lot of rework and extra cost. it is much better to be proactive where your process inherently prevents errors and promotes high quality. In addition the process should be continuously improved to make the product and process better.
Solving issues at the root cause will yield a more efficient process thus saving time and money. I suspect it would also account for a higher level of employee satisfaction.
Companies normally establish both quality control and quality assurance protocols but most of the time do not resolve the root cause of the quality problems
My organization utilizes Quality Assurance to measure the outcomes of different steps in our processes. If there is a problem, we open a Corrective Action, which seeks to find the root cause, fix it, then implement measures to sustain the correction. This is a necessary process in my industry (via governing quality management systems). However, it often feels like this process is also totally reactionary, and that my org doesn't have a complimentary inverse process that proactively breaks the cycle of inspection and rework.
Simple fixes for zero defects but they tend to produce added steps with waste. If the process is fixed you eliminate the need for the quality check points and rework.
In some ways, this seems obvious. Why would anyone business accept constant rework when a solution could be implemented to eliminate the need for rework, thus reducing time and cost.
Bridget, I’m not sure I understand your comment, can you elaborate? To clarify the video, rework is not a good way to achieve quality because it doesn’t fix the defective step that created the initial error.
Doing it right the first time is so much easier and cheaper. Especially in a picking/packing operation, I want the first person that sees a problem to kick the product. Too often they don't say anything because it's "not their job" to inspect for quality because they're busy hitting their picking numbers. But there's so much waste that goes with that mentality!
David Roberg you hit the nail on the head saying that personnel is busy with hitting their pick targets. This is a case where a drive for productivity results in people disconnecting from their surroundings and getting latched on to a number! Also people realize that all that matters is their number at the end of the shift. Are they a team still? Metrics have destroyed the team! And stifled quick awareness and response.
Joseph Tshulos You Must always know why and the cause of the defect, and fix it; or you will continue to have defects, no matter how much quality control you have.
Push quality INTO the process - don't let it be a second (later) process. Our team spends too much time and energy discussing the right layout of the QC area and the right % of orders to send there, when we would do better to investigate how to improve the process in the first place!
Josh Klinzing that is an amazing example of spending energy and talent in setting a better QC area or rework area! Warning : after you improve yields and that many people are not needed in QC, do not lay them off. They likely know a lot about how to prevent these mistakes from happening again elsewhere. They would be ideal GB candidates. Working in a non-value added task doesn't make a person less valuable.
