How to evaluate QC results?

I don’t quite understand, how much does what the poster said have to do with QC? Most of the listed content is craft work.

This post was last edited by pzhmotor on 2009-7-31 13:36 LZ’s question is very targeted. As grassroots technicians, the issues raised by LZ are also issues that we have pondered over and over again and tried to avoid as much as possible. Let me talk about my personal opinions on the QC results report. 1. It must reflect "spontaneity". If it is a technical transformation arranged by the company and it is rewritten as a QC result, at least it must be so that the reviewers cannot see too obvious traces. QC generally does not make equipment or process modifications with excessive investment in actual operations, but it may also find ideas through QC activities. The QC report writing should reflect this aspect. ——If it cannot be done, it cannot be said that "it is all the result of hard work." Even the preparation of the report does not follow the standards, at least the writer did not work hard. 2. "Innovation" must be reflected. Innovation must be combined with the characteristics of its own process and equipment conditions. It does not necessarily have to be a new approach, but it must also make people feel that it is the result of everyone's wisdom. 3. Every step of carrying out activities reflected in the report must be organized and supported by data. This is a basis for reflecting whether the QC team is serious and rigorous in its work. Maybe differences in writing skills will determine the performance of a QC result, but data support is necessary, otherwise how can we evaluate the effect? It is not easy for people to engage in technology at the grassroots level, and there are not many opportunities to be recognized. Objectiveness determines that we will use every opportunity to express ourselves to reflect the value of workers. Many front-line personnel and maintenance personnel know their own equipment and processes best, and the advice they provide is sometimes the most effective. We also want to be able to provide financial rewards to everyone, so that at least the workers feel that their efforts are recognized. Therefore, there will be a phenomenon where the company's internal technical transformation and QC declaration are carried out at the same time for the same project. In order to build up its own brand, companies sometimes encourage this to be done during operations. However, I personally believe that the prerequisite for evaluating a good QC report is to embody the "wisdom of the masses" and achieve the effect of "making a difference", and writing skills come second. I think leaders who are overly participatory are inconsistent with the spirit of QC. After all, spontaneity is the essence of QC. I think the introduction of mature technology and equipment does not meet the QC review conditions. This is a job that is part of the job. Even if the city recommends it, it will not go very far. PASS! Personal opinion for reference. (If the poster has good QC results at hand, please share them with us at the appropriate opportunity. If you want to learn from them, * knowledge in this area)