TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF CLUJ-NAPOCA

ACTA TECHNICA NAPOCENSIS

Series: Applied Mathematics and Mechanics
50, Vol. IV, 2007
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS
AUTOMOTIVE, ENVIRONMENT AND FARM
MACHINERY
AMMA 2007 – 11 - 13 October, 2007 – Cluj-Napoca, Romania

AMMA-2007xxx

UTILIZATION OF MQA (MATRIX OF QUALITY ASSURANCE)

FOR REDUCING THE NON-CONFORMITIES
WITHIN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES

Viorel NICOLAE, Alexandru BOROIU, Ionel VIERU, Ion DOBRESCU

Abstract: This paper presents the possibilities of using the Quality Assurance Matrix in order to
reduce the non-conformities within the manufacturing processes. There are emphasized two factors
representing the protection level provided: the general quality level within the workplace (preventing the
non-conforming products to pass downstream) and the general quality level of the factory (preventing
delivery of non-conforming final products outside the factory). So, this matrix allows us to evaluate the
protection level (against non-quality) of the intern and extern clients.
Keywords: Matrix of Quality Assurance, PDCA, defects, gravity index, quality guarantee.

1. INTRODUCTION the manufacturing process (for the potential and

The Matrix of Quality Assurance (MQA) is
a quality instrument based on the principle that
any defect (unconformity) of a manufacturing
process that affects a client (that could be the
next process, the next shop or the final client)
must be imperatively eradicated.
MQA is an instrument that allow us to do
periodical quantification of the quality
assurance level for the production processes,
reliability check (with the sense of thrust or
efficiency) of the control tools implied in the
production process, the necessity and the
possibility to implement the mistake proofing
systems (Poka-Yoke) or other protection
systems against unconformities.
This method allow to prevent and reduce the
defects in a large or small area, starting from
the intern clients (processing lines, assembly
lines and vehicle final assembly line) up to the
extern client (in the sale network).
The method make a hierarchy of the
reliability limits of the control systems within
existing defects), allowing to apply the
corrections needed and to reach the quality
established objectives.
So, acting over the quality problems causes,
it is fulfilled the base quality principle: no
defect pass or accepted.
2. THE STRUCTURE OF MQA
MQA is built on the structure of PDCA
cycle:
Plan – set-up of the quality objectives and
define the technological process;
Do – making the analyze;
Check – verify the reliability of the
established check;
Act – apply the measures for the operations
that could not provide the quality established
level.
In the first area of the QA matrix (PLAN)
there are written the defects and their gravity,
for each workplace. It is necessary to make a
short analyze concerning the defect concept:
 - defect: it is perceived by the client, on the Thus, for manufacturing we are dealing with
product; unconformities and influent parameters (defect
- unconformity: it is observed on the causes), elements that will be emphasized in
product, on the basis of the surveillance plan; MQA as defect.
- influent parameter: it is determined to The defects are emphasized using a gravity
process, o the basis of the surveillance plan. index, as presented in Table 2.
Table 1
The Matrix of Quality Assurance
Process name
Workplace no.

Risk
Defect mode
Influent parameter
Importance
Antecedent

Control process Guarantee Registered Guarantee

Shop floor Outside value of defects value of
the shop quality quality
floor

Outside the shop floor

Outside the shop floor

…
Workplace no. …
…
…
Workplace no. …
…..

Factory

Factory
Client
Shop floor

Shop floor

Shop floor
Workplace

Comments
PLAN DO CHECK ACT

Table 2
Example of values for the gravity index.
Impact Assessment criteria Quotation
Serious Defect that hinder use of the products or create a strong dissatisfaction, with A/5
demand for reparation
Very embarrassing Defect that determine the client to express his dissatisfaction in an inquiry B/3
Embarrassing Defect discovered by the client, but tolerated C/1

The defects are emphasized on different In the next area (DO), the control process is
columns, depending on their types: analyzed (within the production process and in
- real defects: they appeared at least once its downstream).
and proved to be real; Thus, using different quotations depending
- potential defects: they are not appeared yet, on the efficiency or safety of the control done,
but they were identified by risk analyze (FMEA it is emphasized the quality guarantee at
or AMDEC). workplaces and control places (within the
However, they will be treated with the same production process or next to it).
attention within MQA, an instrument that
guarantee the quality to client - intern or extern.

Quotations for quality guarantee.
Quality guarantee
Automated total control (100%)
Impossibility for assembly or necessity of further processing
Poka-Yoke for interdiction / control
Poka-Yoke for alert
Statistic control
Control 100% done by operator with location
Control 100% done by operator without location (based on senses)
Periodic audit
In the third area (CHECK) it is evaluated the
degree of quality assurance for the analyzed
production process.
The value for quality guarantee is
determined for each identified defecting mode
(real or potential) in three columns:
1. For the workplace (the sum of quality
guarantee quotations within the shop floor);
2. Outside the shop floor (the sum of quality
guarantee quotations in downstream);
3. At factory level (the sum of the first two
values).
In another set of columns it is emphasized
the amount of registered defects (within shop
floor, factory or at client); they are not the
potential defects, but the real ones.
By comparing the defect importance
(established in the first area) with the guarantee
values (at workplace, shop floor or factory), it
is determined the quality guarantee level for
each defect.
The level of quality guarantee is fulfilled (at
workplace, shop floor or factory) if the value of
guarantee is at least equal with the defect
importance, situation marked with OK sign (in
a contrary situation the sign will be KO). If
there were observed defects, the sign KO will
be directly attributed. Regarding the influent
parameters, the quality guarantee is analyzed
(and marked) only at the workplace, because
even the outside controls are done only at the
respective workplace.
It is so obtained a complete image for the
entire production process: for each process it is
marked the existence or non-existence of
quality assurance at different levels: workplace,
shop floor or factory.
In the last area (ACT), if for one of the
defects it is not provided the quality (at
Table 3
Quotation
5
3
1
workplace, shop floor or factory), there will be
mentioned the proposals to eradicate the defects
by one of the following ways:
- improving the existed controls (so, the
quotation of the control increases and it could
become efficient);
- introduction of supplementary controls at
workplaces;
- a combination of the above two ways.
It is preferably to provide the improvement
of the existed controls before introducing
supplementary controls at workplaces.
3. EVALUATION OF THE GLOBAL
LEVEL OF QUALITY ASSURANCE
As it was presented above, the quality
guarantee for each identified defect is evaluated
by attributes, in binary system: quality is
assured (OK) or quality is not assured (KO).
The global level of quality assurance (or
guarantee) at shop floor or factory level could
be numerically quantified; this provides a
sensible appreciation of the degree of intern or
extern client protection against defect.
Thus, using the level of quality guarantee for
each defect (at shop floor or factory level),
there could be determined the next two
indicators for the global level of quality
guarantee:
- the global level of quality guarantee
within the shop floor, AQat:
nOK , at
AQ at = (1)
nOK ,at + n KO , at
- the global level of quality guarantee
within the factory, AQuz:
nOK ,uz
AQ uz = (2)
nOK , at + n KO ,uz
 Considering the calculation mode for these - the global balanced level of quality
two indicators (quality assurance at the factory guarantee within the factory, AQuz,p:
level includes, besides the measures at the shop
floor level, the measures taken in downstream), ∑n OK ,i ⋅ pi
it is obvious that that there is permanently true AQ uz , p =
uz ,i
(5)
the relation: ∑n
uy ,i
OK ,i ⋅ pi + ∑ n KO ,i ⋅ p i
uz ,i

AQ uz ≥ AQ at
3. CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS
The working instrument presented above is
used successfully by the automotive
manufacturers because it offers a real image of
quality assurance for a production process and
allows us to quantify the quality improvements.
There is a single drawback in the calculation
of these two global indicators: it is not realized
the difference between the defects, depending
on their gravity.
In order to take into consideration this and to
have a more realistic image of the client
protection degree, there could be used the
following balanced relations (they consider the
balance of defects gravity):
- the global balanced level of quality
guarantee within the shop floor, AQat,p:
∑n
at ,i
OK ,i ⋅ pi
AQ at , p =
∑n
at ,i
OK ,i ⋅ pi + ∑ n KO ,i ⋅ pi
at ,i
(3)
The sensitivity of those two global indicators
could be improved using another scale (more
sensitive) for evaluation of the defects gravity,
respective for the quality guarantee level; for
example, instead of 5/3/1/ scale it will be used
the 5/4/3/2/1 scale.
Besides the necessity for continuous bring
up-to-date of MQA (for the perpetual
application of PDCA cycle with the aim of
quality continuous improvement), it is
important to observe the dynamics of those two
global indicators of quality assurance, that must
confirm the continuous increase of client
protection against defects.
4. REFERENCES
[1] Boroiu, A., Tehnici si instrumente de
asigurare a calitatii. Aplicatii practice,
Editura Universitatii din Pitesti, 2005.
[2] Mot, T., Avram, C., Asigurarea calitatii cu
ajutorul metodei MQA (Matrix of Quality
Assurance), Sesiunea de comunicari a
(4)
cercurilor stiintifice studentesti,
Universitatea din Pitesti, 26.05.2007.

Title and abstract in Romanian (preference) or in French, German or English as different language regarding to the
whole article (10 pt.)

UTILIZAREA MATRICEI DE ASIGURARE A CALITATII PENTRU REDUCEREA

NECONFORMITATILOR IN PROCESELE DE FABRICATIE

Lucrarea analizeaza posibilitatile pe care le ofera utilizarea matricei de asigurare a calitatii pentru a oferi o cat mai
mare protectie impotriva producerii neconformitatilor in procesele de fabricatie. Sunt evidentiati cei doi factori care
constituie nivelul de protectie asigurat: nivelul general de calitate la locul de munca (impiedica trecerea produselor
neconforme catre posturile din aval), respectiv nivelul general de calitate al uzinei (impiedica livrarea produselor finale
neconforme in afara uzinei). Astfel, matricea permite evaluarea nivelului de protectie (impotriva non-calitatii) a
clientului intern si a clientului extern.

First author’s Name Surname, Title, Position, Organisation, Name of Department, E-mail, Office
Phone. The same for all authors.
Viorel Nicolae, Prof.PhD.eng, University of Pitesti, Automotive Department, E-mail:
viorel.nicolae@upit.ro, tel. +40-248-218804/133.
Alexandru Boroiu, Prof.PhD.eng, University of Pitesti, Automotive Department, E-mail:
alexandru.boroiu@upit.ro, tel. +40-248-218804/133.
Ionel Vieru, Assoc.Prof.PhD.eng, University of Pitesti, Automotive Department, E-mail:
ionel_v@yahoo.com, tel. +40-248-218804/287.
Ion Dobrescu, Assoc.Prof.PhD.eng, University of Pitesti, Technology and Management
Department, E-mail: ion.dobrescu@yahoo.com.