There's another recent thread on this, but we're having real heartburn with this one so I think it warrants a new one. The question is in regard not just to who has authority to disposition nonconforming product, per AS9100 8.3, but the "process for approving personnel making these decisions". We've been advised by a consultant that we need to write into our proceedure that any employee (including the Quality Manager) has to work for our organization for 6 months before being able to make dispositions on nonconforming product. I don't know how most companies could live with this. If a Quality Manager (or other key position) is hired based on that person's ability and experience, and meets the qualifications of the position, doesn't that show sufficient competence to do their job (including disposition of nonconforming product) without a 6 month tenure in their position? In my past lives, key managers were hired with the expectation that they would hit the ground running and be able to fulfill all the requirements of their position. A Quality Manger that didn't disposition material for 6 months probably wouldn't last 6 months! Anybody have any thoughts on this?

I agree with your statement that the Quality Manager should be able to hit the ground running, but....

My current position is a perfect example. I work in the metal industry for 10 years and knew it fairly well. Because of my quality knowledge and knowledge of the automotive industry I know am the Quality Manager in the plastic industry.

I have hit the ground "running" as you have said but there are some defects that I have had to use my MRB process because I am not knowledgeable enough to make the definite call.

Maybe that is what you need to solve your answer. If there is ever a question on the parts then they are required to go into MRB for final disposition. Just a thought. :2cents:

Now don't get me wrong on day 1 I had to make a call and did so, but in terms of the system I could see some registrars getting their undies in a bundle.

Keep in mind your system is your system and people can only make suggestions. As long as you can prove that the system is working, your customers are ok with it, and it meets the standard you have a leg to stand on. If you are "hit" on an audit you always have the ability to fight the "hit".

Your consultant is far from correct and I question his reasoning.

I could probably make the determination never having worked for you based upon my expertise in aerospace quality while working for Lockheed Martin and the US Army and never having worked for you.

As I stated in the previous thread the entire process revolves more around the "competence" of the decision maker and not the procedure. Ultimately a decision has to be made by a person and all people have to posess competence within the scope of their duties.

Your consultant is far from correct and I question his reasoning.

I could probably make the determination never having worked for you based upon my expertise in aerospace quality while working for Lockheed Martin and the US Army and never having worked for you.

As I stated in the previous thread the entire process revolves more around the "competence" of the decision maker and not the procedure. Ultimately a decision has to be made by a person and all people have to posess competence within the scope of their duties.

I agree if you hire someone you are putting faith in that person to make the right decision. That faith is based upon the skills that you felt fit the job.

If a person has worked for the company for 6 months, but has no clue how the product is used by the customer, or what the product requirements are, they have no business dispositioning product. The process for approving personnel for dispositioning nonconforming product should have nothing to do with time in the company, it should be based on knowledge and competence.

What I would recommend is defining the specific competencies required as spelled out in AS9100 clause 6.2.2. By the way, if your company has a Designated Manufacturing Inspection Representative (DMIR), then that person has already been approved by the FAA.

" is hired based on that person's ability and experience, and meets the qualifications of the position,"

Here they go with a 3 month waiting period but as you indicated above if you were to clearly define these details in your procedure on how you qualify some one to perform MRB then I do not see why qualified individuals can not hit the ground running. The issue you want to make sure is clearly addressed is for those all to common "use as is does not affect fit form or function" dispositions that require some local product knowledge.
:2cents:

Thanks all for the feedback. Certainly, a "newbie" has an obligation to get all the information he or she can before making disposition on a product they are not familiar with and not be taking shots in the dark. In reality, we make very few dispositions without input... although ultimately one name goes on the dotted line. Looks like we're all thinking pretty much alike on this.

I don't know if I am off track here but:

Why is a Quality Manager making disposition anyway? If product is non-conforming, shouldn't the department producing the nonconforming product make disposition with input from Quality.

Sometimes, there is a morning committee that would deal with nonconforming product but on off shifts, it is the Production Supervisor with input from Quality.

Can you just imagine if there were a Cost of Quality system in this company, the Quality Manager gave a disposition of scrap and the costs were charged to the direct production division. It is like having someone in your bank account.

Production are responsible for making the product to specification while Quality is a service department assisting departments reach their quality objectives. The Quality Manager should not be responsible for making disposition but only contributing input for a decision

I don't know if I am off track here but:

Why is a Quality Manager making disposition anyway? If product is non-conforming, shouldn't the department producing the nonconforming product make disposition with input from Quality.

Sometimes, there is a morning committee that would deal with nonconforming product but on off shifts, it is the Production Supervisor with input from Quality.

Can you just imagine if there were a Cost of Quality system in this company, the Quality Manager gave a disposition of scrap and the costs were charged to the direct production division. It is like having someone in your bank account.

Production are responsible for making the product to specification while Quality is a service department assisting departments reach their quality objectives. The Quality Manager should not be responsible for making disposition but only contributing input for a decision

In theory I think you are correct, but reality not really.
Production is suppose to make the call on the floor but if there is a "hard" decision then Quality is asked. In this case the Quality folks on the floor make the call, but...

Lets say that Quality finds parts that are "bad" and production disagrees. At this point the Quality Manager has to step in and make the final call. If this is left in the hands of production, the majority of the time they will default to shipping the product. Quality must be the conscience of the facility.

Yes in a true MRB situation Quality can be over ridden by production and engineering, but they stuff must be the conscience.

As the Quality Manager at my facility, (mind you it is small 51 people) I make calls on product daily. If there is a concern on an off shift then the parts are put no hold until the morning. It is not a perfect system and could use lots of improvement but it keeps the bad product in house.

Now yes our cost of quality can be very high. We make plastic products so we can product 10,000 parts over the evening. The quality folks that report to me will make a call but I am the judge if you will between a tie between my quality folks and production.

In the perfect world I would just be a support function but in my previous 11 years of manufacturing experience that is not the case. I know many have worked more years in manufacturing but my experience says that production only cares about numbers and Quality must keep them on the straight and narrow.

I agree with the philosophy, but not that it always occurs in practice. In my experience, most of the time these decisions are made at the source by the people responsible, and the dispositions are the right ones. But due to conflicting priorities, interests, opinions... sometimes the QA engineer or manager needs to step in and take a stand. Ultimately, we're the eyes and ears of the customer, and if we don't like what we're seeing and hearing, we have to act in a way that protects the customer... even if it's not the popular decision.

In theory I think you are correct, but reality not really.
Production is suppose to make the call on the floor but if there is a "hard" decision then Quality is asked. In this case the Quality folks on the floor make the call, but...

Lets say that Quality finds parts that are "bad" and production disagrees. At this point the Quality Manager has to step in and make the final call. If this is left in the hands of production, the majority of the time they will default to shipping the product. Quality must be the conscience of the facility.

Yes in a true MRB situation Quality can be over ridden by production and engineering, but they stuff must be the conscience.

In the perfect world I would just be a support function but in my previous 11 years of manufacturing experience that is not the case. I know many have worked more years in manufacturing but my experience says that production only cares about numbers and Quality must keep them on the straight and narrow.

You are quoting a 30 year old system that I used in 1975 when I first become a Quality Manager. This is a total confrontational system where production would try anything to get the product by Quality. If they were successful and then the Customer rejected it, Quality would be blamed. We didn't even have a good corrective action system at that time just inspection and more inspection. It doesn't work!!

I moved into the automotive supplier field and then changed their existing confrontational system with the blessing of the top person in the company. Each department now took responsibility for their quality and over their costs for nonconforming product. What a difference. All Customer rejections were reflected back to the department that produced it. Quality became a supporting service department rather than the "Cop". Costs did drop and quality did improve. Production did their own inspection and the Quality group worked on systems, PPAP, Control Plans, FMEAs, audits and some testing. It is difficult but it does work!!

You are quoting a 30 year old system that I used in 1975 when I first become a Quality Manager. This is a total confrontational system where production would try anything to get the product by Quality. If they were successful and then the Customer rejected it, Quality would be blamed. We didn't even have a good corrective action system at that time just inspection and more inspection. It doesn't work!!

I moved into the automotive supplier field and then changed their existing confrontational system with the blessing of the top person in the company. Each department now took responsibility for their quality and over their costs for nonconforming product. What a difference. All Customer rejections were reflected back to the department that produced it. Quality became a supporting service department rather than the "Cop". Costs did drop and quality did improve. Production did their own inspection and the Quality group worked on systems, PPAP, Control Plans, FMEAs, audits and some testing. It is difficult but it does work!!

I agree with you....

Unfortunately in my current position and previous one I did not have the support that you did to get things changed.

In both organizations they would prefer that Quality has the "control" that way there is always a fall guy.....

I only hope I can see a place at your level sometime in my working career.

<snip>In both organizations they would prefer that Quality has the "control" that way there is always a fall guy.....

That does not mean that you have to accept the status quo.....

This is an opportunity to challenge the way things are done and make a case for yourself just as David did.

Stijloor.

In both organizations they would prefer that Quality has the "control" that way there is always a fall guy.....


funkj:

Between Stiljoor and myself, we have a lot of years in the quality game.

I became a Quality Consultant in 1986 and always developed an integrated quality system as I described previously for many companies but I did have top management approval.

Here is how I would get top management approval.

I would go out for lunch with the General Manager. I got away from the shop and after lunch I discussed changing the system to the integrated system. If I could not get top management approval don't even try changing the system. It will not work.

If the system does not change, you ARE the fall guy and you WILL be terminated sometime on an issue that you had no control. My blood pressure was at stroke level under the confrontation system and I was only 32 years old.

Make sure that opportunity is right and attempt to get approval for an integrated system where you are truly a service sector.

funkj:
My blood pressure was at stroke level under the confrontation system and I was only 32 years old.
It's a good thing you never did the work I've done in my career:lol:

Anyway..............You guys are getting all twisted around the axle about who is supposed to what and when..................It doesn't matter who does what, what department does what or when things happen.........It doesn't matter!!!

Only Top Management can define what is to be done, how it is to be done and by whom within the MS process. You guys are all worried about job titles and department names when in reality they are meaningless within an MS...Look in your standard and see if you can find Production Department or Quality Manager...........I have and I can't.

Once top management has defined roles and responsibilities the next step is to determine competency needs and develop a process by which they can be achieved and verified.

The process of disposing of NC Product must 1st be defined and the personel performing disposition of NC Product must be able to demonstrate the ability to do so as defined....competence! It doesn't matter how long they've worked for you or Bubba next door. It doesn'tmatter who trained themor how much they've had. All that matters is if they can perform the tasks as required in the manner required........competence!

Use the standard for the solution and quit playing "Who's on 1st?"

There's another recent thread on this, but we're having real heartburn with this one so I think it warrants a new one. The question is in regard not just to who has authority to disposition nonconforming product, per AS9100 8.3, but the "process for approving personnel making these decisions". We've been advised by a consultant that we need to write into our proceedure that any employee (including the Quality Manager) has to work for our organization for 6 months before being able to make dispositions on nonconforming product. I don't know how most companies could live with this. If a Quality Manager (or other key position) is hired based on that person's ability and experience, and meets the qualifications of the position, doesn't that show sufficient competence to do their job (including disposition of nonconforming product) without a 6 month tenure in their position? In my past lives, key managers were hired with the expectation that they would hit the ground running and be able to fulfill all the requirements of their position. A Quality Manger that didn't disposition material for 6 months probably wouldn't last 6 months! Anybody have any thoughts on this?
...well, sorry for this :( … but with all those “views” coming from various experts having different perspectives…

…I guess, you can give a try to follow your consultant’s advice… afterall, at least you have “someone” to blame when things went wrong… :rolleyes: