HELP, I am having a major problem with this one. We have a new Quality Manager, his first time. I have audited our non-conforming area 3-4 times in the last 6 months. Our procedure specifies that theses parts are to be identified in this area by part number and quantity. That means if it is a box of foundry scrap that it is identified by what it is and how many. Everytime I have audited this I have found boxes with no id and no qty. To counter this the Quality Manager has now just hung up signs in this area (Foundry Scrap) and says that it is identified. They have moved any list form this are to an electronic file, that is ran at the end of the month for records. The problem is that I still have boxes sitting in this area with no id on them. This area is also no a secure area, It is in our receiving inspection. Help do I have a leg to stand on?

Are the boxes numbered to correspond to the electronic file?
If not there is a serious disconnect.

As this is not a secured area and there are no counts how can he assure an auditor that nothing is being take and used "in a pinch".

Are you performing internal audits, and are you writing these nonconformances? Are these not being addressed by your management?

I would think if nonconformance has been identified and no action has been taken, that does not bode for your quality system.

The point of controlling nonconforming parts or material is ensuring they don't end up at the customer or in the manufacturing stream. This might also include components and chemicals.

I don't have your procedure in front of me, but my question to you is how the method you stated will ensure the nonconforming material doesn't get mixed with good material?

Typically the methods I've viewed range from
1. A special shelf that is labeled, to:
2. A bar code system where the part is individually accounted for and can be flagged as discrepant so it won't be used.

Somewhere in between these two is the option of labeling the material and its storage place. Another option is locking up the material in a cage until it's dispositioned. Logically it should also be marked with a part number that points to its status.

In any case the material should somehow be identifiable as nonconforming. Ideally there would also be some means to avoid its inadvertent use, usually segregation. What your specification says to do is what should be done. If this fellow wants to rewrite the process document then I'd say that step should happen before he changes the rules.

The point of controlling nonconforming parts or material is ensuring they don't end up at the customer or in the manufacturing stream.

And.......... that it gets reported to management so that they can get a battle plan together to reduce/remove the cause. We sometimes forget that there's a pile of $$$$ sitting there - either as waste or lost opportunity. The defect reason(s) should be recorded too, to allow analysis and the aforementioned battle plan to 'go after' them...........Is this being done? Are your management in the least bit interested in stopping rejects? Don't worry about tagging/signs if it isn't.............:rolleyes:

Andy

In addition to the problem of the material not being identified, it also sounds like there's no requirement in place for timely disposition of the material. You should have some sort of system--an MRB, for example--that reviews rejected material on a regular basis, and makes sure that it's properly dealt with.

Thanks for all the responses. The NCF in question is Foundry Scrap. It is held until the end of the month in this area. We do contact the supplier about the cost to be reimbursed for the loss. Theses boxes have no identification on them at all to corespond to the other paperwork, they just have parts in them. This is in response to a CAR that I wrote on this problem. The technician was fiiling out a report with the part id and qty. every day and placing it in the boxes. I audited the area and these reports were no where to be found. I took it to his Supervisor, the Quality Manager, who went back over the work instruction with this employee. I went back the next morning, and the id was still not with the box. I went back for one more night and two more mornings over the next week and still did not have the Id with the box. At that time I wrote him a CAR. This is his reponse to my CAR. Not to make the Technician do what is required , but to change the way he is doing the job. The Document Control received the new (electronic)document that are using (already) and the request to obsolete the form that provided the id. That was when I was brought back in to the situation, and no the actual work instruction was not changed, just the rules.

8.3, Control of Nonconforming Product is a shall clause. It says; The organization shall ensure that product which does not conform to product requirements is identified and controlled to prevent its unintended use or delivery. I see no suggestions here only mandates.

Doug