z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Defining the best quality-control systems by design and inspection
Author(s) -
C. Martin Hinckley
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
clinical chemistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.705
H-Index - 218
eISSN - 1530-8561
pISSN - 0009-9147
DOI - 10.1093/clinchem/43.5.873
Subject(s) - statistical process control , quality (philosophy) , control (management) , task (project management) , computer science , nonconformity , process (computing) , quality management , operations management , reliability engineering , engineering , artificial intelligence , systems engineering , operating system , management system , epistemology , philosophy
Not all of the many approaches to quality control are equally effective. Nonconformities in laboratory testing are caused basically by excessive process variation and mistakes. Statistical quality control can effectively control process variation, but it cannot detect or prevent most mistakes. Because mistakes or blunders are frequently the dominant source of nonconformities, we conclude that statistical quality control by itself is not effective. I explore the 100% inspection methods essential for controlling mistakes. Unlike the inspection techniques that Deming described as ineffective, the new "source" inspection methods can detect mistakes and enable corrections before nonconformities are generated, achieving the highest degree of quality at a fraction of the cost of traditional methods. Key relationships between task complexity and nonconformity rates are also described, along with cultural changes that are essential for implementing the best quality-control practices.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom