Re: decentralize QC function

[BCoop1116@aol.com]

Lee,

We did part of this at North Island.  We got rid of the inspection at the end 
of the line but we instituted some things in the shop so that defects, 
reworks, etc., were were reported, we hoped.  Hard to get someone to tell on 
themselves but we tried.  In that vein we kept a small group who compiled all 
the data and made the charts, etc.  

The fact is that the folks in the manufacturing role rarely or never see 
themselves in the "number crunching" role.  They may make marks on a paper or 
tabulate information but "damn" few have the capability or desire to analyze 
it.

If you have outside groups or government as a customer you will need the data 
to show that you do in fact have a quality program.  Our most successful 
venture was when we made QC part of the process from the beginning and made 
them part of our process improvement effort.  We put more QC up front and 
during and were almost able to stop the "catch it at the end when it is most 
costly." Sorting the good from the bad at he end makes your customer the 
ultimate QC.  If you look at it from a probability issue at the end you have 
one chance to fix it or separate it but in the process you have many 
opportunities.  By the way the QC folks in many cases knew what was wrong 
with the process but improvement was not their job.  Once we made process 
improvement part of their job, and made them part of the process, rather than 
police at the end we made great progress. 

Good luck a hard change but one that can clearly be worked on with success.  

Bill  Cooper