Which of the following approaches can reduce rework, scrap, or wasted time?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Designing potential defects and errors out of the process—using methods like poka-yoke (error-proofing), robust design, and DFMEA—removes root causes and therefore prevents rework, scrap, and wasted time.

1. Relevant knowledge points and concepts
- Prevention vs detection: Quality management distinguishes prevention (eliminate causes) from detection (find problems). Prevention is more effective and less costly long-term.
- Poka-yoke and design for manufacturability: These techniques eliminate opportunities for error by changing product/process design.
- Cost of quality: Prevention costs are typically far lower than internal/external failure costs (rework, scrap, recalls).

2. Step-by-step reasoning
- If a defect is designed out, the process never produces that defect, so no rework or scrap is needed for that failure mode.
- If you only detect and stop a process, you still may produce some defective units before detection or require halting/inspecting, causing downtime.
- Identifying defects after they occur requires corrective action and wastes materials/time already spent.
- Cost-benefit analysis is a decision tool, not a direct method to reduce defects; it helps decide whether to act but doesn’t itself prevent errors.

3. Intermediate logical steps (no numeric calculation required)
- Root-cause elimination -> defect cannot occur -> zero rework for that defect.
- Detection-only approach -> defect occurs -> rework or scrap required -> wasted time and materials.
- Prevention-focused design shifts effort earlier (engineering) but reduces cumulative downstream costs.

4. Why the correct answer is correct
Designing defects out addresses the origin of failures. By changing parts, tolerances, assembly steps, or controls so mistakes cannot happen, you eliminate the need for correction and inspection for those failures. This directly reduces rework, scrap, and wasted time more effectively than stopping, detecting, or analyzing after defects appear.

5. Why other options are incorrect
- Identifying and stopping a process before defects occur: reactive control relies on detection triggers and may still allow defects or cause downtime; it’s less robust than design elimination.
- Conducting a cost-benefit analysis: useful for decisions but does not itself reduce defects or scrap.
- Identifying defects soon after they occur and correcting: minimizes damage but still incurs scrap/rework and lost time.

6. Conclusion
Designing potential defects and errors out of the process is the best approach to reduce rework, scrap, and wasted time. This matches the provided correct answer.

Which of the following approaches can reduce rework, scrap, or wasted time?单项选择题

类似问题

The stability of the product line influences the need for control and changes in the quality system.

How is the tolerance range divided in pre-control technique?

39. The concept of “Quality at the Source” means that:

27. Which of the following is not a way of combating process variation?

As part of the control quality process, there may be recommended preventive actions, a proactive approach of making a change because a problem may occur otherwise.

The best way to mistake-proof a process is to:

The materials supplied by a certified supplier do not require manufacturers to conduct routine testing on all the lots supplied.

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单