![]() (Unfortunately it also discourages some good auditors, but that’s another story!)īut there are also some disadvantages/ problems, such as:Ĭ. A strict administrative/accreditation process that weeds out poor quality auditors and shady registrars. The “Core Tools” in particular provide very specific and prescriptive methods for quality planning.ī. Many auto industry specific additions, as Renaud listed in the article mostly good practices. So we aim for perfection, with actual performance (ideally) in the parts per million defective range. If any one is defective the whole car is defective to some extent (an oversimplification, but not by much.) If each supplier has a failure rate of 1 part per thousand, then the typical car will have 10 – 20 defects. This number counts complex assemblies such as engine, transmission, and axle as 1 part each, so the total number of components is 10,000 to 20,000. Typical assembly plant gets deliveries of 2,000 – 4,000 part numbers to build the cars. Besides the difficulty of change, think about the complexity due to the numbers of parts involved in a car. 1) Why did it come about?Īs mentioned, the auto industry is highly dependent on supplier quality they’ve had their own approaches for SQA since the late 1970’s. I’d have a few comments for those unfamiliar with it. ![]() ![]() I’ve been working with ISO TS 16949 since its inception, and with its predecessor, QS-9000. One of our regular readers, Brad Pritts, sent me a note about yesterday’s article.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |