MOBILITY ENGINEERING Produced by SAE Media Group
MOBILITY ENGINEERING
Magazines
Magazine cover

Current Issue

Archives

Magazine cover

Current Issue

Archives

Magazine cover

Current Issue

Archives

Magazine cover

Current Issue

Archives

Process Approach to Determining Quality Inspection Deployment

New tool measures quality control system effectivity.

As new technologies are implemented in manufacturing areas, inspection processes will be affected. Often because product quality has increased or automated inspection equipment has been introduced, the inspection activity may be reduced or eliminated. In many cases a disciplined process is needed to evaluate performance data against risk to determine if this change is warranted.

Figure 1. Inspection system and inspector interaction.

A tool has been developed using an Excel® spreadsheet with an imbedded checklist, which will guide users through a series of decision points to make a determination if a change is warranted. The approach attempts to answer the question: How can inspection practices be identified, reviewed, and updated to keep up with technological changes, trend results, facility changes, etc.?

Inspection is often considered a non-value-added expense and therefore subject to budget constraints that usually try to reduce the inspection footprint. If these arguments lead to a reduction in inspection without proper analysis, the organization may be faced with significant risk that will materialize in the future. The inadequacies of inspection can be traced to either improperly applying an inspection system, or the problems with the individual inspection process as shown in Figure 1. Aside from inexperience in designing an inspection system, external forces such as cost and schedule constraints or lack of funding to implement proper inspection processes and tools can increase risks.

The inspection system is the approach for deploying inspectors and the assignment of tasks to these inspectors. Depending on the nature of the process to be inspected and the quality level of the particular process, the inspection system may choose to use 100% inspection, sampled inspection, operator inspection, patrol inspection (inspector moves from station to station), automated inspection, or a combination of multiple types. Inspector capability is dependent upon training to standards, the capability of the inspection tools in use, the time allowed for inspection, and the record keeping provided.

Figure 2. Return on investment (change in inspection resources) vs. investment (effort to perform analyses and capital expenditures).

The inspection result is dependent upon the interaction of the inspection system and the capability of the individual inspector. When either the inspector or the inspection system is poor, then inspection results are erratic as shown in Figure 1. Only when both are good will the inspection result be good. Before significant and potentially expensive changes are made to the manufacturing or inspection processes, it should be determined that the ineffective inspection process isn’t simply the result of a mismatch between inspection system and inspector deployment.

The level of inspection is dependent upon the capability of the underlying manufacturing process, which in turn can be affected by design tolerances and key characteristics. In general, process variability should be independent of the people performing the process. The process should have business or product requirement goals which are met. Ancillary controls should be in place such as adequate worker training, use of calibrated equipment, and appropriate raw materials presented to the process.

When the manufacturing process changes, the inspection approach should be re-evaluated. These changes include introduction of new manufacturing technologies, significant process or facilities changes, and design changes. On the other hand, inspection techniques may improve because of the introduction of inspection technologies or improved inspection techniques. Finally, inspection may be affected by changes in specifications and customer requirements, cost and schedule drivers noted by management, or defect analysis and other anomaly investigations.

Each of these conditions requires an appropriate analysis of the relevant manufacturing, inspection, or stakeholder requirements changes. The tools presented here evaluate the return on investment of an inspection change vs. the investment to implement the change. Investment includes both the effort to conduct the analyses, as well as the effort to modify inspection. As shown in Figure 2, if the return on investment is high and the investment is low, then it is a natural inspection change to make (Just do it). On the other hand, if the return is low and the investment is high, then it’s best to avoid the change (Forget it). When the return on investment is low and the investment is low, most likely these are second in line to tackle and there may be many of these changes to make (Backlog). Finally, when the return on investment is high and the investment is also high, a strategy must be chosen to determine which inspection approach to change (Strategic).

This work was done by Eric S. Richter and Arthur L. McClellan for National Reconnaissance Office. NRO-0001

Topics:
Aerospace Control systems Defense Inspections Manufacturing processes Quality control Test & Measurement
This Brief includes a Technical Support Package (TSP).
Document cover
Process Approach to Determining Quality Inspection Deployment

(reference NRO-0001) is currently available for download from the TSP library.

Don't have an account?

More From SAE Media Group

    Magazine cover
    Aerospace & Defense Technology Magazine

    This article first appeared in the August, 2016 issue of Aerospace & Defense Technology Magazine (Vol. 1 No. 5).

    Read more articles from this issue here.

    Read more articles from the archives here.

    Overview

    The document titled "Process Approach to Determining Quality Inspection Deployment" (Report No. TOR-2015-02544) presents a systematic methodology for evaluating and improving inspection processes in the aerospace industry. Authored by Eric S. Richter and Arthur L. McClellan, the report was developed through a collaborative effort involving multiple organizations, including major aerospace companies and government agencies.

    The primary focus of the report is to provide a tool and guidance for assessing the value of reducing inspection efforts when introducing new inspection technologies or modifying existing ones. This is particularly relevant in the context of modern manufacturing methods, where efficiency and cost-effectiveness are paramount. The document outlines a generic evaluation methodology that can be applied across various inspection processes, allowing organizations to systematically compare and assess their inspection strategies.

    A key feature of the report is the Excel®-based tool developed by a cross-industry team. This tool enables users to input specific parameters, such as investment costs and expected returns, to generate scores that help determine the feasibility and value of proposed inspection modifications. The tool is designed to adapt to different scenarios, including changes in manufacturing processes, inspection processes, and data-driven decision-making. It emphasizes that while the tool provides valuable insights, it should not replace management experience and sound business judgment.

    The report also includes examples in an appendix that illustrate the application of the tool in real-world scenarios, demonstrating its practical utility. Additionally, it highlights the importance of thorough analysis and decision-making processes in determining the acceptability of inspection modifications.

    Overall, the document serves as a comprehensive resource for aerospace professionals seeking to enhance their inspection processes. It emphasizes the need for a consistent and data-driven approach to quality assurance, ultimately aiming to improve mission success and operational efficiency in aerospace projects. The collaborative nature of the report underscores the collective expertise of the contributors, reflecting a commitment to advancing best practices in the industry.

    Top Stories

    INSIDERMaterials

    Feature Image New Clean Planet Facility Converts Waste Plastic to Sustainable Aviation Fuel

    NewsManufacturing & Prototyping

    Feature Image Engineering Better Reusable Bulk Containers for the Automotive Industry

    INSIDERPower

    Feature Image New Study Finds Lean-Burn Engines Don’t Reduce Aircraft Contrail Formation

    INSIDERResearch Lab

    Feature Image Researchers Discover Material That Conducts Heat Better Than Copper

    NewsLighting

    Feature Image Forvia Hella Ready with ADB; NHTSA: Not So Fast

    NewsAutomotive

    Feature Image WCX: Expert Claims War Hurting China’s Already-Struggling Economy

    Webcasts