I've been hanging around the site for awhile now and have learned a lot from everyone's combined knowledge and experience. The Cove is certainly a tremendous resource.

Our company provides localization and translation services to companies. The actual translation work is outsourced to linguists all over the world.

Recently, a customer complained about the quality of a translation we delivered. Per our process, we verified the quality of the translation through an independent review and found there was a problem (nonconforming product). The product was partially reworked by the reviewer and not completely retranslated because of budget constraints. The product was delivered to the customer and the end result was the above-mentioned complaint. The nonconforming product was then reworked to the customer's satisfaction.

We identified, controlled and corrected (albeit not very well) the nonconforming product. I believe we failed to re-verify to demonstrate conformity to the customer's requirements. Basically, we cut corners due to budget.

Should there be a finding of nonconformity here? I look forward to everyone's responses.

Thanks,

Jim

I've been hanging around the site for awhile now and have learned a lot from everyone's combined knowledge and experience. The Cove is certainly a tremendous resource.

Our company provides localization and translation services to companies. The actual translation work is outsourced to linguists all over the world.

Recently, a customer complained about the quality of a translation we delivered. Per our process, we verified the quality of the translation through an independent review and found there was a problem (nonconforming product). The product was partially reworked by the reviewer and not completely retranslated because of budget constraints. The product was delivered to the customer and the end result was the above-mentioned complaint. The nonconforming product was then reworked to the customer's satisfaction.

We identified, controlled and corrected (albeit not very well) the nonconforming product. I believe we failed to re-verify to demonstrate conformity to the customer's requirements. Basically, we cut corners due to budget.

Should there be a finding of nonconformity here? I look forward to everyone's responses.

Thanks,

Jim

Refer to this informative thread also - http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=17477

Hello Jim,

A nonconformity is defined as a nonfulfilment of a requirement. Your company failed to meet the expectations/requirements of the Customer. I believe that this qualifies as a nonconformity. Appropriate corrective action should be taken. NC's are learning opportunities. Lessons learned should be used to prevent recurrence.

Hi Stijloor,

Thanks for the response. I should have worded my question differently. I agree it's a nonconformity. I was looking for the clause to cite. I believe it's 8.3 Control of nonconforming product because we didn't re-verify the translation to prove that the corrected translation now met requirements.

If I'm mistaken and there's a more appropriate clause, please let me know.

I've been hanging around the site for awhile now and have learned a lot from everyone's combined knowledge and experience. The Cove is certainly a tremendous resource.

Our company provides localization and translation services to companies. The actual translation work is outsourced to linguists all over the world.

Recently, a customer complained about the quality of a translation we delivered. Per our process, we verified the quality of the translation through an independent review and found there was a problem (nonconforming product). The product was partially reworked by the reviewer and not completely retranslated because of budget constraints. The product was delivered to the customer and the end result was the above-mentioned complaint. The nonconforming product was then reworked to the customer's satisfaction.

We identified, controlled and corrected (albeit not very well) the nonconforming product. I believe we failed to re-verify to demonstrate conformity to the customer's requirements. Basically, we cut corners due to budget.

Should there be a finding of nonconformity here? I look forward to everyone's responses.

Thanks,

Jim

Even for experts, translation and interpretation are tricky subjects. Before you can identify a condition as nonconforming, you first need a reliable standard or set of criteria to be used. Simply saying that the customer isn't happy isn't enough; there are times when customers aren't reasonable, and might not even understand their own requirements.

If you're sure that a substandard job was done in the first place--and you can specifically cite a requirement that was violated--you have a basis for corrective action, and writing up an NC would probably be worthwhile. On the other hand, if the requirements are vague or ambiguous, you might want to start there, and make sure that everyone--including customers--understands what's expected.

Even for experts, translation and interpretation are tricky subjects. Before you can identify a condition as nonconforming, you first need a reliable standard or set of criteria to be used. Simply saying that the customer isn't happy isn't enough; there are times when customers aren't reasonable, and might not even understand their own requirements.

If you're sure that a substandard job was done in the first place--and you can specifically cite a requirement that was violated--you have a basis for corrective action, and writing up an NC would probably be worthwhile. On the other hand, if the requirements are vague or ambiguous, you might want to start there, and make sure that everyone--including customers--understands what's expected.

In this case I can't cite a specific customer requirement because there was none. This is not to say the customer didn't have any, but they weren't communicated to us and we didn't ask. The not asking part is a different problem that certainly contributed to the nonconformity. Maybe the clause to cite is 7.2.1. Obviously you can't satisfy the customer if you don't know what they want or expect.

For the most part, we don't receive a lot of customer complaints. I believe our independent review process is responsible for that. It certainly catches spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors and the infrequent missed translation. When we do have complaints, they are usually related to the tone and style of the translation or the translation of specific words or phrases. All problem areas that could be avoided if we would perform a more thorough job of determining customer requirements.

There are three types of non-conformances defined in the standard - those for the product, process and the system.

In your case, initially there was a non conforming product. The customer was not happy with it. You re-evaluated it an found that it was a fault ay your end. In your case, two actions were feasible -scrap or rework. You chose to rework and resubmitted to the party. The party is happy. The correction has been done.

While doing this whole process, a system non-conformance has arisen as you have rightly discovered. The clause you have identified is also correct. You did not re-verify the reworked product. You will find this requirement clearly stated under clause 8.3

Why you chose not to re-verify is a separate issue. You can dig into it as you look for the root cause. You may discover that your process does not define the reverification stage at all. Any defense about not knowing the customer's requirements would also not stand. The product is expected to satisfy the customer' requirements, both stated and unstated. In this case you happen to know the specific problem the customer has.