In point two, Adopt the new philosophy, the concept of continuous improvement is introduced. This ties in well with point one, as long-term thinking is necessary to see the advantage of continual improvement. It involves investing work, up-front to build a much more profitable future. Working to prevent problems rather than continually dealing with problems. A business focused on short-term gain is not likely to see the wisdom in such an approach.
In studying the fourteen points it may become evident they are all necessary. Each is dependent upon all of the others. The fourteen points is not a list from which to pick and choose. It is the guidelines of a very successful and all encompassing management philosophy.
Point Three: Cease dependence on mass inspection.
In my experience this is one of the most misunderstood points. I must confess a good deal of confusion myself. Kindly, Dr. Deming clarified this for me. He is not saying to eliminate all inspection. He clearly acknowledges in cases it is beneficial.
I believe Dr. Deming is saying, inspection in and of itself does not improve quality. Used in this manner it merely helps separate unfit production from fit production. The fault has occurred and now is being located for correction. This is Do, Inspect, Rework, Deliver and cost will greatly increase as better quality [tighter inspection] is sought.
Perhaps the greater value of inspection is as a tool to identify opportunity for improvement. For instance, inspection may be used to gather data. It could also be used to confirm changes to a process with regard to output quality. What would be wrong is depending on inspection to catch defects, rather than working to eliminate the causes of the defects.
In the auto repair trade inspection is a way of life. Largely there is inadequate instrumentation for in-production verification of processes. Much of the information available is unreliable and there is very little control over incoming material. The best results for me came from reduction of inspection and trying to make the inspection I do a tool for improvement.
Early on I did a great deal of inspection on incoming material. Over time, certain brands and products showed measurably lower failure [less potential of defects.] By maintaining a data base these products could be selected and less reliable material avoided.
This approach showed it was much less costly overall, to use more expensive material, in many cases. Ironically in other cases, more expensive products showed no benefit over less expensive. In a few cases the less expensive product showed better results. What I learned was, price was not a reliable indicator of fitness for a product.
Certain brands consistently demonstrated superior performance. These brands were adopted and now only spot checking and rudimentary record keeping are necessary. This is to retain quality and identify changes that may occur. This greatly lowers the need for inspection.
Some inspection will likely remain necessary well into the future. To be effective the specifications must be known and there needs to be a means to measure them. One such example may be interviewing the client before any work begins. The client has a concern, this is the specification. It must be understood completely and relayed accurately to the inspector [technician.] Further it must be determined that the specifications [client’s request] can be met by the capability of the shop.
In some cases this is not possible. Accepting such a job may only frustrate the technician, the client and result in a loss to the shop. In such cases the job should not be taken unless the specification can be changed to those that can be met. This initial inspection saves a great deal of problems down-stream.
Such an example could be a client that needs immediate service when my shop is already at capacity. My system cannot meet this specification. All I can do is explain when I can see the vehicle. If this is not adequate, my shop is unable to meet this client’s specifications at this time.
Another form of inspection is a test drive. Again, the inspector [technician] must know the specifications [client’s concern] and have adequate means to measure them. Once the vehicle is complete the inspector [technician] may verify the specifications have been met [concern has been resolved.]
With continual improvement, a case where the concern has not been resolved would be seen as an opportunity. How did the problem get to this stage without being detected earlier? Is there a method that might have detected the problem at an earlier stage? Is it practical to employ this method to prevent future occurrence? PDSA could be employed and with such thinking a shop might reduce process time substantially.
Inspection, so employed becomes a tool of improvement. I think this would be in keeping with Deming’s principals. Depending on inspection to catch problems for rework rather than working to improve the process to eliminate problems would be considered mass inspection.
To me the meaning of point three is not to eliminate all inspection. It would be, improve processes to eliminate problems, rather than relying on inspection to catch them.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
