A
Th e
Component Manufacturing dverti$er
Don’t Forget! You Saw it in the
Adverti$er
February 2019 #11235 Page #34
How Does a Fabricator Gain From a 3rd Party Audit?
W
hen a 3rd party inspector inspects a licensed plant, what exactly are the auditors looking for? And what can the fabricator get from the experience?
What the inspection is NOT, and why that matters: • The part 1 audit of the in-house paperwork is not a grade on neatness. It’s an evaluation of the process. This is why it’s important the paperwork reflects actual work progress. It needs to contain spontaneous notes, reflections, and information from the actual inhouse inspection. A typed report with crisp, clean print may seem like the professional solution, but unfortunately it does not provide the auditor the “fly on the wall” view they need to make sure the process is effective and thorough. As an auditor, we want to see the creases, dirt, oil, and weather the paperwork experienced more than data. Distant managers thrive on pages of tabulated data with crisp pie charts, but that’s not what’s as helpful to auditors. To truly understand the merits of a Quality Assurance Program, the actual process is what one should evaluate, not the end result nor the summary data captured. • Quantity does not beat report accuracy. Complete and precise inspections which meet the 3 inspections per station, per week, per shift rule are time better spent than doing more inspections partially or inaccurately. If the in-house inspections are random and complete, our experience shows that more inspections don’t necessarily improve quality. The completeness of the inspection and resultant feedback to the shop impacts quality the most. • There is no expected ratio of perfect vs. imperfect quality. When reviewing the plant’s in-house inspections, the auditor is not calculating a value based on errors and problems identified by the in-house inspector. In actuality, the auditor is comparing their findings (or lack of problems) with the frequency and effectiveness of the in-house inspector’s findings. Does the auditor’s Part 2 inspection of the product manufactured resemble the in-house’s inspections? If they don’t, then does the auditor’s report show more or less problems? If the answer is less, then maybe the in-house inspector is not familiar with the TPI requirements and needs additional training. Or maybe the in-house inspector is too strict. Keep in mind, the auditor should be using the same criterion as detailed in the Quality Assurance Manual the facility has adopted. If the Auditor finds more issues compared to the weekly inspections, then possibly the inhouse inspector needs additional training so they will understand what the requirements mean and how they are applied. This is why it’s important for the in-house inspector to follow along with the auditor to see firsthand and better understand the requirements. This is a training opportunity that should be taken advantage of whenever possible. • The part 3 audit is not meant to only be an evaluation of the inspected truss. It’s an opportunity to observe the in-house inspector using their normal patterns and methods, so the auditor can view the process the in-house inspector uses to create their weekly inspections.
Continued next page
PHONE: 800-289-5627
Read/Subscribe online at www.componentadvertiser.com
FAX: 800-524-4982