1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice
You must be a registered member in order to post messages and view/download attached files in this forum.
Click here to register.

Requesting Input on CAR

Discussion in 'ISO 9001:2015 - Quality Management Systems' started by MikeR, Jan 20, 2022.

  1. MikeR

    MikeR Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2021
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Hello,
    I'm new to the AS/ISO world and would love to hear some feedback from folks who've been around this block a few times.
    I'm working on a CAR that was issued to our company for parts we shipped that still had burrs on the thread.
    The work in progress is below:

    Root Cause of Discrepancy:
    This was challenging to determine because the non-conforming parts were manufactured approximately 2 years ago.
    However, after reviewing all available data we believe the following to be a root cause:
    A system flaw with the Shop Floor Control System (SFCS) (There was no warning to an operator who completed a sequence short of the WO quantity).

    *Additional contributing causes may have been operator miss-communication.
    Work order records confirm that these 2 jobs of 529 pcs and 628 pcs were split up and deburred by two different operators and the jobs ran over a period of 5 - 7 days each.
    In this scenario, it is not difficult to imagine that a stack or 2 of trays that one operator might have thought was completed, actually was not.

    2 i) help Immediate action to prevent further non-conformances and Containment:
    There is no standing inventory @ company and all parties involved have been notified.
    ii) help Corrective Action to prevent recurrence of root cause:
    The SFCS has been replaced.
    If a sequence is completed in the new ERP with a quantity less than the WO qty, the system requires the operator to either acknowledge this shortage or investigate what happened.

    *Additional communication exercises will be conducted during daily training.
     
  2. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Welcome, MikeR!

    I'd suggest this is a great opportunity to employ the approach from the IAQG APQP tool box https://iaqg.org/standard/9145-apqp-and-ppap/ and deploy a Process FMEA with the folks involved here.

    If done - and I mean the sessions should be facilitated by someone who knows how to do an effective FMEA - properly, you'll never have to do this again - answer a CAR like this - I mean!
     
  3. MikeR

    MikeR Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2021
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Hi Andy,
    Thank you for your comment.
    I will look into that material.
    In the meantime, I'll post the response I got from our customer...
     
  4. MikeR

    MikeR Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2021
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Customer's response:
    (Again any insights would be much appreciated)

    After reviewing your responses to the CAR, the team has requested re-assessment on:

    • 1-ii) Clarification on the root cause. Was accountability for the deburring process the issue?
    • 2-ii) How does the ERP system prevent process escapes? In other words, what stops the operator from inputting the full qty in ERP not knowing, the operator physically completed less? The team feels this corrective action will not adequately prevent re-occurrence.



     
  5. BradM

    BradM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    394
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    Arlington, TX
    Hello there!!

    Question... why was this just being discovered (or addressed) two years after the fact? Did they not use these parts fairly quickly after mfg.?

    So if one of the most likely contributors is that a tray of parts could have been overlooked, what with the ERP system and SFCS would prevent that from occurring again?
     
  6. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Good question. Maybe they are also used in service? Sometimes service parts sit around for a while. A car battery I bought just a week ago had sat at Autozone for a year and a bit...
     
  7. MikeR

    MikeR Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2021
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Correct, the parts sat on a shelf in our customer's warehouse.

    The chosen cause we are focussing is not an overlooked tray of parts.
    Instead, 1 level deeper is why, if the system knew the tray was not completed (completed parts logged) did it not warn the operator.
    The WO called for 628 pcs., the record showed that the operator had logged 517 pcs complete and then closed the sequence short - the system failed to notify or warn that the sequence was closed short.
    The new system will notify the operator, requiring some kind of acknowledgment if this was to happen.
     
  8. BradM

    BradM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    394
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    Arlington, TX
    Ah! Understood.

    It just seems to me... that while yes the system should have better alerted the operator didn't log in all the parts...
    Its still possible to ship parts that weren't deburred. And to have customers that only discover a failure two years after the failure... it really make any kind of effective investigation very difficult.

    Certainly you are the pro with your process and understand the potential risk of this failure. It might just be nothing more than a cosmetic type thing; I don't know.

    But if it has a more potential serious impact, I might kind of look into other steps. Maybe a random sample inspection or something. Just a thought.

    To your point, I like what you added about the 1 level deeper. I might consider adding that to the CAR.... Hey, we had a failure, here is why the unburred product shipped, here is where we fixed it, and now it will notify an operator.

    You might consider adding that no other customers have reported any non-burred parts, to assure this was a one-time thing.
     
  9. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    ^^^ are some of the discussions which would be had by the team in conducting the FMEA...
     
  10. MikeR

    MikeR Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2021
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Unfortunately, while I've read about and have a basic understanding of the FMEA, I've never conducted one.
    It seems that additional learning would be appropriate before tackling that particular tool...
     
    Andy Nichols and John C. Abnet like this.
  11. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    709
    Likes Received:
    510
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Upper Midwest- USA
    Yes Mike some quality training (and hands-on mentoring if possible) would be very beneficial to you/your team.

    Be well.
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  12. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Having someone who knows how to facilitate a FMEA session, as OJT is a great way to do this.
     
    John C. Abnet likes this.
  13. MikeR

    MikeR Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2021
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    2
    If time and cost investment were being evaluated, would anyone care to offer training suggestions using a good, better, best approach?
    Off hand, I'm thinking something like Good: YouTube, Best: Certified Auditor...?
    Just taking a stab here and not really sure of available resources.
     
  14. MikeR

    MikeR Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2021
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    2
    What is OJT?
     
  15. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    On the Job Training (sorry, if it's a culturally derived expression - I work in the automotive sector in the USA)
     
  16. MikeR

    MikeR Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2021
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    2
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  17. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    709
    Likes Received:
    510
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Upper Midwest- USA
    Not sure where you're located Mike. AIAG offers a three (3) day course. ASQ has a "beginners" course that is 5 hours. My experience is get a good overview course and then augment it with some hands-on mentoring.
    (We try not to monetize this site, but since you asked...I have offerings if you want to reach out to me direct via a DM.)

    Hope this helps.
    Be well.
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  18. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    709
    Likes Received:
    510
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Upper Midwest- USA
    ....also Mike (and this is very important), there are two FMEA approaches currently in parallel existence...

    * AIAG 4th edition.
    This is the approach that "everyone" is the most familiar with, and has been THE method for years. This approach is still accepted by SOME oem, but, depending upon who your customer is this version MAY become the "old" (dare i say obsolete?) approach in the future.

    * VDA/AIAG harmonized approach.
    This is a commingling of German and US approaches. This is often referred to as the "new" approach. If you're within the supply chain of IATF members, then it is quite likely this will be the ONLY acceptable method going forward. (each OEM has a different schedule for implementation. May I ask who your OEM customer(s) are ?)

    Hope this helps
    Be well.
     
  19. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Excellent points, @John C. Abnet (except if Mike is in Michigan, then I get to offer help first) and I would commend the VDA FMEA since it has many superior features over the 4th Edition.
     
    John C. Abnet likes this.
  20. Qualmx

    Qualmx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2015
    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    27
    Location:
    Mexico
    I´d face this issue in the next way:

    Why this non conformance product arrived with the customer?

    -Who released the product?, even if there was not communication between operators, I think someone
    checked the product before the sending to customer.
    -Why do you support the customer after two years? normally the product is offered one year warranty.
    -It seems a problem which can be addressed easily without to have to use FMEA.
    -What is the % of bad product? sometimes some percent is allowed by the customer.

    My two cents.