My thanks in advance of what I know will be useful help from forum members. You patience and tolerance for ameteurish questions are greatly appreciated by this poster. Particularly useful is information from those who have 'been there and done that' - practical implementation.
I need some advice regarding treatment of non-conformances in incoming raw materials versus non-conformances in products. We have documented processes and work instructions for the creation of NCMRs for manufactured products including the disposition of the products. What we do not document is the process for handling non-conforming incoming raw materials. Can both not be addressed within with one Procedure and one Work Instruction?
What is the difference between a "Product" and a "Material"? My ISO guidance books generally define "Product" as the "result of a process". ISOs 8.3 does specifically say "Control of Product" and most discussions relate to disposition in terms of customer requirments as if raw materials are to be considered elsewhere. Are raw materials not also products (results of a process) whether we consider them to be results of a suppliers process or alternatively, results of our own Purchasing process? Why are they called NCMRs (non conforming materials reports) if they only consider Products? Why aren't they NCPRs (non-conforming Product reports)? Are we splitting hairs at this juncture (does it matter)?

Nonconforming product can be at any stage, be it at goods in (raw materials or parts), during production or finished product. What the standard requires is for us to control it as stated by clause 8.3. There does not need to be a distinction between parts and material.

1 procedure is fine, just make sure it covers all eventualities of nonconformance. Alternatively, you could describe in a procedure how to conduct a task (say goods in) and describe what to do when you get n/c material/product as part of that procedure.

I often don't have a separate procedure for n/c product, I include it in the procedure(s) that describes other activities such as goods in, production, packaging etc.

Nonconforming product can be at any stage, be it at goods in (raw materials or parts), during production or finished product. What the standard requires is for us to control it as stated by clause 8.3. There does not need to be a distinction between parts and material.

1 procedure is fine, just make sure it covers all eventualities of nonconformance. Alternatively, you could describe in a procedure how to conduct a task (say goods in) and describe what to do when you get n/c material/product as part of that procedure.

I often don't have a separate procedure for n/c product, I include it in the procedure(s) that describes other activities such as goods in, production, packaging etc.

To take Colpart's good advice a step further, some companies use a single form and process to deal with all nonconforming conditions, even those that are not directly related to products/materials. It's possible to use the same form and process for documenting audit findings, for example.

Colpart,
Many thanks for your reply.
I'm still getting resistance and claims that raw materials are handled under 7.4.3. We do not investigate the nonconformity under 7.4.3.

Thanks for your input! I am being advised that 8.3 applies only to nonconforms in produced product and to nothing else.

7.4.3 does relate to the verification of purchased product so it does involve the receipt of raw materials (if that is what has been purchased). However, 7.4.3 does not tell us what to do if there is a problem so we need to go to 8.3. I can assure the doubters that 8.3 refers to all nonconforming product.

My understanding and interpretation is similar to yours. We even have a space on our bulk raw material inspection forms for "disposition" but we do not define who has the authority or responsibility to determine disposition. I suppose we will eventually come to understand our auditor's interpretation.
Thank you for your time and advice.