Change is good

D Prasad, TA, CQAE (NS) Mumbai.

Quality assurance (QA) implies assuring the quality of product inclusive of identification of reason for failure of products. Most Quality assurance organisations do that especially in the private sector. However government organisations stop at finding faulty products and then pass on the bug of faulty product reduction by eliminating the causes of failure to supplier. Though it looks pragmatic, a better option could be a participative responsibility by both the supplier and QA units in pin pointing the causes of failure. In this article, light is thrown on the intricacies of quality assurance method. At present almost all the QA units in DGQA do the following procedure for assuring the quality of the various products pertaining to their jurisdiction. 1. Scrutinize the Purchase order issued from the order placing authority(OPA) 2. Resolve clarifications with the OPA / supplier. 3. Inspection of the product. 4. Issue of inspection note. 5. In case of failure of the parameter in which the product fails is intimated and the inspection cycle continues. This process is not at all quality assurance and it is simply inspection. Inspection is simply sorting of the products based on the specification requirements. To do quality assurance the following needs to be added. 1. Liase with the supplier to do Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA). 2. The cause for the product failure could be found by Root Cause Analysis (RCA) and Fault Tree Analysis (FTA). 3. Give solution to the cause of failure. Though the above may stretch workforce of QA units, in the end it will enhance the reputation of DGQA being a savior to the firm and customer due to the following. 1. Reduction in number of rejection inspection notes which basically cuts down the time duration between the demand and delivery of the product. 2. Reduction in inspection visit expenditure as less rejection means less inspection visit for a single product. 3. In the long run effective quality assurance instead of effective inspection.

4. A reduction/ deployment of work force may also happen as the workload gets reduced. The above also have some disadvantages at the start as it involves the following 1. Increased interaction with supplier increases the paperwork. 2. Prolonged work life of an active file. A case study in the form of Heavy Duty Non-skid Epoxy Paint is considered to describe the Quality assurance process. Inspection and subsequent testing of paint reveals that the paint failed in the following parameters 1. Total abrasive material content 2. Flash point 3. Resistance to sea water 4. Non-volatile material content Failure cause analysis states that non-volatile content and flash point are related. A low non-volatile matter content means volatile content is high and obviously the paint flashed early than specified upon exposure to flame. Failure in resistance to sea water could be attributed to improper paint composition. Along with the inspection note the following recommendations to the firm for nonrepeatability of failure causes could be forwarded. 1. Ensure proper composition of Non-volatile material (it ensures required flash point). 2. Ensure proper mixing of base and hardener (it ensures required abrasive material content). 3. Firm to provide valid reason for failure in resistance to sea water. The classic glass is half full half empty idea basically forms the morale of any unit. A positive morale could be created / enhanced by making positive changes in work environment/methods. A proactive role in assuring the quality of work done ultimately provides happiness to all concerned.