A disagreement arises between production and analysis: should it be based on production or on analysis?
Thread Content
A disagreement arises between production and analysis: should it be based on production or on analysis?
If you’re sure the analysis results are correct, then stick to them – there’s no need to hesitate! The problem is that the results of your analysis have to be correct!
Test results are based on proper sampling and accurate analysis, and of course, decisions should also be made on the basis of those test results. Otherwise, why conduct the test?
I completely agree with the second floor’s opinion; when analyzing, you must ensure that your data is accurate!
Of course, first it is necessary to ensure that the analysis results are accurate; once that is the case, there are no disputes, and of course the analysis results should take precedence. Of course, sometimes it’s difficult to determine whether the analysis results are accurate; this requires everyone to sit down and analyze the situation carefully, identify where the problems lie, and then find solutions – arguing alone is useless! ! !
Analysis means sticking to principles; that’s the truth. Otherwise, why conduct analysis? If you don’t agree with the results, you can do it again—several times if necessary—but analysis must always be based on principles
Generally, when there are discrepancies between the analysis results and production data, managers usually first check whether there are any issues with the analysis. Therefore, before submitting your data, you need to be confident and ensure that you have done the following: 1. Take new samples; 2. Check whether the standard solutions are correct; 3. Seal the samples; 4. Have the analysts on site talk to the operators to find out if there are any fluctuations in the production process. Only after that should you report the findings to higher authorities
I agree with the second floor’s view – there’s no issue of whether to follow it or not. Once the analyst provides this analysis result, then that result is correct. If the workshop needs to start production urgently, then the laboratory alone cannot stop it. If there are objections to the analysis results, it is not the workshop or senior management who will make the decision; instead, a technician from the department must conduct a recheck, or the samples may need to be sent to an external arbitration agency for further testing.
Reply to the original poster: At no time should there be disagreements between analysis and production; if such disagreements arise, it indicates a lack of trust in the analysis. In that case, quality control itself becomes questionable, and it loses its meaning! Of course, analysts must also possess a high sense of responsibility and professional ethics, and they must ensure that the analysis results are accurate!
From a professional perspective, the analysis process is generally subject to strict control, resulting in a relatively lower likelihood of errors, while production control is more rudimentary, leading to a higher probability of errors. However, from the perspective of corporate interests, if a disagreement arises between the two parties, the best course of action is to prepare for the worst in order to protect the company’s interests, by taking measures as quickly as possible to minimize losses. But afterwards, the laboratory must analyze the issue from all possible perspectives to identify the cause; whether right or wrong, facts and evidence must be presented to give an account to the management and to itself.
That’s a leadership issue; generally, few mistakes are made in the analysis
I strongly disagree with resorting to arbitration analysis; even when there are disagreements with suppliers or product customers, efforts should be made to avoid resolving them through such analysis, let alone within the company itself
Analyze according to the OOS procedure; once confirmed to be correct； Report. Analysis plays a role in ensuring quality. If the quality of the products manufactured is unsatisfactory and they still want to get them out of the factory, then that’s another matter.
That’s true too; as long as the analysis is accurate, one can have a clear conscience
When this happens, it is usually the case that technicians from the two departments communicate with each other, seeking causes in the production and analysis stages to determine which side is at fault; it cannot be simply said that it is the responsibility of one party.
First, ensure that the data you are checking is completely reliable; conduct self-checks first before considering other factors. Fluctuations in the manufacturing process certainly deserve **attention. It’s not about claiming that there is a problem with the process or with the inspection procedures; instead, we should discuss things calmly to understand how these fluctuations occur and what effects they have. When problems arise, we should work together to figure them out, rather than shifting blame or attributing the issues to others. Communicating together is the best way to resolve problems.
OOS investigation – I’m not sure if this procedure is used in chemical analysis. In the pharmaceutical industry, there is a systematic process in place to handle cases of failed analyses, and few people raise any objections. Last edited by skillscope on 2009-4-20 21:47.]
Personally, I think the credibility of analysis is higher than that of production. Therefore, if the analysis seems to be correct, production cannot be used as a basis
To work in a state-owned enterprise, you first need to find the basis or guidelines for analysis; if you make mistakes by following those guidelines, it’s not your fault. Of course, it’s important to communicate well with your supervisor