Architectural Flashing Supply
Start a Quote
Tier 4 · Advanced Fabrication and Manufacturing

Manufacturing QA and continuous improvement

QC, QA and a quality system, the classes of nonconformance and the words of continual improvement; where a flashing job's acceptance criteria come from; root cause analysis, FMEA and strong corrective actions; and a nonconformance worked from discovery to a verified fix.

4 lessons · about 43 min · 9 diagrams · 3 videos

Version 1.0.0

Builds on these modules

Related Academy lessons

Lessons

0 of 4 complete

  1. Lesson 1 · 11 min · 10 slides · 8 questions

    Manufacturing QA and continuous improvement: principles and terminology

    QC, QA and a quality system; the seven ISO principles and the 2026 edition of ISO 9001; critical, major and minor nonconformance; first article; kaizen, jidoka and mistake proofing; and where AFS checks quality in its order system.

    You will be able to: Tell quality control, quality assurance and a quality management system apart, classify a nonconformance by its consequence, name the continual-improvement vocabulary, and state the safety boundaries of inspection and quarantine.

    Not startedStart →

  2. Lesson 2 · 10 min · 11 slides · 6 questions

    Manufacturing QA and continuous improvement: materials, standards and design constraints

    Where a flashing job's acceptance criteria come from: the specification's quality articles and shop drawings, the edition of a referenced manual, what material makers say is and is not a defect, and the limits AFS checks every profile against.

    You will be able to: Trace each acceptance criterion on a flashing job to the document that governs it: the contract, a referenced standard and its edition, the material maker, or the fabricator's own limits.

    Not startedStart →

  3. Lesson 3 · 11 min · 11 slides · 8 questions

    Manufacturing QA and continuous improvement: methods and worked application

    Root cause analysis in seven steps, five whys with its validation question, a worked FMEA on a painted coping order, the stronger-to-weaker ranking of corrective actions, and the lean tools that keep an improvement in place.

    You will be able to: Run a root cause analysis and a simple FMEA on a flashing job, record the assumptions and ratings, rank corrective actions by strength, and choose the tools that hold the gain.

    Not startedStart →

  4. Lesson 4 · 11 min · 12 slides · 6 questions

    Manufacturing QA and continuous improvement: defects, verification and case study

    The nonconformance loop from discovery to standard work, who decides a disposition, a worked case of a painted coping formed with the paint on the wrong face, checking that the fix worked with reject rates, a receiving case of white deposit on galvanized flashing, and the evidence packet.

    You will be able to: Handle a nonconformance from discovery to a closed loop (stop, segregate, contain, disposition, find the root cause, correct, verify, standardize) and assemble the evidence a reviewer needs.

    Not startedStart →

Practical task

Build a quality job packet for one painted coping order of your own design (or a job you have worked on): set its acceptance criteria, write the final check, rate what could go wrong, and work one nonconformance from discovery to a verified fix.

Hand in

  • A decision rationale: the documents that govern acceptance (spec quality article, shop drawing, referenced manual and its edition, material maker, fabricator limits), each named
  • A marked-up sketch of the coping section showing the painted face, hem face, measured legs and inspection points
  • An assumptions sheet with units: material, thickness, colour, painted side, leg lengths and piece length, each labelled as from the order, the drawing or assumed
  • A final-check checklist and a short FMEA: five process steps, what could go wrong, severity and probability (your own example scale), and which to act on first
  • A defect analysis for one nonconformance: problem statement, containment, five whys with the validation question, the corrective action ranked by strength with owner and date, and a before-and-after rate

Rubric

CriterionMeets the standard when
Acceptance criteriaEvery criterion names the document it comes from, including the edition of any referenced manual, and nothing is judged by look alone.
Problem statementIt says what went wrong, not why or how, and names no person to blame.
Root causeThe five whys end at a system cause that passes the validation question; contributing factors are kept and labelled as such.
Corrective actionThe action is ranked stronger, intermediate or weaker against the CMS list, a stronger or intermediate action is chosen where one is possible, and it states what, by whom and when.
VerificationBefore and after are compared as rates with units (rejects per 100 pieces), not raw counts, and the fix is written into standard work.
SafetyThe packet keeps the quarantine rack stable with the aisle clear, and names hand protection for handling cut edges.

Module quiz

10 questions drawn from a bank of 28; a new set each attempt. Pass mark 80%.

1. In the CMS five-whys test, what is an answer that would let the problem recur even if it were corrected?
2. MCA says no panel manufacturer, fabricator or installer can assure what?
3. How does AGA describe wet storage stain?
4. When does CMS say FMEA looks for potential failures and their effects?
5. With 18 rejects in 400 pieces, what is the reject rate per 100 pieces?
6. What happens in FlashDraft to a profile whose design check is BLOCKED?
7. Under FAR 46.407(d), who may decide to accept or reject a minor nonconformance?
8. When naming the outcome of each failure in an FMEA, which outcome does CMS say to choose?
9. Which FAR class covers a nonconformance that is likely to materially reduce usability for the intended purpose, without being unsafe?
10. Under the New Mexico template, who is responsible for all dimensions?