by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
button in toolbar for more information.
Metal Casting Technologies : September 2010
50 www.metals.rala.com.au TECHNICAL FEATURE of quality and determine the estimated cost of nonconformance to a foundry industry stated quality goals. Initially to identifying opportunities toward simultaneous quality improvement and cost reductions which may in turn result in increased customer satisfaction and profitability. As a result, the following objectives for the system: (i) Design a quality system that included concern for the customer (ii) Utilize the existing quality goals standards to gauge process performance and product quality (iii) Develop a set of metrics to quantify nonconformance cost relative to internal quality standards (iv) Involve employees and utilize continuous improvement tools. Process of solution To achieve the objectives of this study in consultation with management developed a practical approach for assessing the cost of quality. This approach is outlined (7) in the framework in Fig.1. The emphasis of this approach is on implementing corrective actions that result in improved profitability, market share and cost reductions. The cost of quality system includes of cost of prevention, cost of appraisal, cost of internal failure and cost of external failure. The total system approach advocated in Fig.1 is a proactive approach toward achieving operational and strategic quality goals. In a metal casting environment, Total Quality Management teams gather quality related problem data, isolate problem areas, and establish the need for corrective actions. The importance of the solution path to improving deficiencies and increasing profitability is stressed in Fig.1. The approach in Fig.1 is driven by employee involvement in a form of cross-functional teams to identify process improvements and cost savings opportunities. This approach draws on the continuous improvement tools and techniques. Proposed system As a manufacturer, any organization is a quality conscious firm. It is committed to the continuous quality improvements of raw material, products, processes and services. The management team has established quality goals for each of these manufacturing related activities. The standards for these goals are based on research, experience and customer needs. The authors' proposed approach allowed management to quantify the impact of changes in these key quality indicators. A record must be made of the number of castings inspected as well as the total produced. All castings with rejection levels of above budget should be highlighted. When the high incidence of rejection is due to a particular case, this will be clearly shown by the frequency of entries on the record sheet, giving a direct indication of where action is required. Table 1 present's production and rejection details of a set of selected 5 castings produced in a foundry. This type of rejection diagnosis sheet  is highly useful. It is used to assess the scrap performance of each casting. The information recorded typically includes the foundry rejection scrap, cause and action taken, total number or weight of castings produced and dispatched to customer. The system should ensure that the main causes of rejection levels as exceeding the budget sheet. Mutual confidence between a foundry and its customer depends upon close liaison, good communications at all levels and the maintenance of adequate records. The variances from goals are determined, as well as their subsequent costs, if any. The nonconformance cost is calculated and posted in terms of manufacturing cost per day and then analyzed. Steps related to the investigation and corrective actions process are described in Fig.1. The management with the assistance of the researchers successfully implemented the approach shown in Fig.1 to eliminate quality variances and reduce cost. This approach was Fig 1. Flow chart for assessing the cost of quality