Painting Goals

Date 01-16-2007 17:47

What we used is not necessarily appropriate for you but it passed the new criteria- We simply stated that we will supply a fabricated and/or coated product that meets the customer's specifications, and that our goal is to do so on a continuous basis with less than a 1% error rate. (Our corporate business plan, which is developed for corporate health but serves as objective evidence for AISC requirements, has reduced trhat to 1/2% for 2007.)

Basically, our goals for coatings are tied in with fabricaton; our managment review procedure addresses what we are going to measure, and how often, to determine if we have met our goal.

Some have asked what is measured but it doesn't matter as long as it is appropriate for what you do. However we combine several methods - we count the total number of inspections performed under our quality program (this info is in our records anyway) and we track the cost (time & $) of rework to compare to the value of the job.
We don't get very definitive about what we will or won't do if we do not meet the goal because that is a variable that is difficult to address until you get there. We simply state the a long range action plan will be determined in the management review and that Quality meetings are held weekly to address both positive and negative trends, and to identify/address short term issues. Then, of course, we keep records that demionstrate we have done that.

Our training procedure also addresses providing training,instruction, and feedback to production personnel (fab & paint) and some of that will be in response to quality issues.

The biggest hurdle to the new Paint Endorsement is the time it takes to realize you have addressed almost all of the requirements when you went to the Building Standard. It sounds complicated but when you dissect it you probably see that you are already there. Just keep your goal simple, real (for you), measureable, and easy to maintain records for.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 01-16-2007 19:21

Thanks Chet for your reply. I was trying to track number of paint errors divided by the number of pieces inspected per spread. ie. We had a sampling frequency of 10% of the spread and if errors were found we increased the % of pieces inspected until the errors disappeared and then we would revert back to the 10% figure. I just need to quanitify our findings and make some sort of a guess as to what goal to shoot for. My paint inspector is kinda hit and miss on the record keeping, so I need to tighten that up as well.

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 01-18-2007 03:11

Just a couple more things on the topic-
SSPC PA2 addresses the minimum sampling frequency and where to take your readings. It also addresses increased frequency when erors are found. I would be careful not to commit yourselves to more than that. You can always perform a higher frequency but you will probably find the PA2 minimum is adequate most of the time.

Something else to keep in mind- as you know, structural steel is difficult to paint with no runs or sags (but not impossible) and there will always be touch-up where the pieces were turned over. Some paint systems are worse than others. I would make a distinction between routine touch-up and systemic defects, tracking only the defects. That way you are not "chasing ghosts" with your quality program. I would track touch-up as a production operation, then the operation can be evaluated periodically to see where improvements can be made, or you might determine you are doing the best you can with what you have but need to revise how you estimate.