My firm's QMS has, for those offices registered, not yet migrated to the 2K standard. I haven't yet purchased the new standard, so I'm working off of the DIS, and what I have read about the standard here and elsewhere.

I don't see the term nonconformance in the text of the standard. I find conformance, conformity, and nonconformity. I realize the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but to my ear, nonconformance is more of a state, or collective term, nonconformity, more appropriate to describe an instance. Please excuse my prejudice that to discuss a subject clearly, the terms used require clear definitions.

Similarly, I cannot find major and minor nonconformance or nonconformity in the standard. I remember reading somewhere online that these categories were something KPMG more or less arbitrarily came up with.

A quick search of the archives here turned up the rule that 5 to 7 minors = a major in in old standard, which I guess at this point would be the old, old standard.

Can anyone help me connect the dots? My firm's corrective action system uses the major and minor nonconformance scheme, which does not seem to have any basis in the standard.

Rex

-> I don't see the term nonconformance in the text of the
-> standard. I find conformance, conformity, and
-> nonconformity.

It's semantics. And differences in American English vs Queens English a bit. In addition, there is a difference between a system nonconformance and a part nonconformance. And it can get worse if you think in terms of defects vs defectives. So - we have system nonconformities and part/product nonconformities.

A nonconformity is a nonconformance. The difference is that the word nonconformance is not even found in an english dictionary. But:

Nonconformity:
Pronunciation - nan kEn for mih ti
Definition 1. refusal or failure to conform, esp. to societal customs, values, or the like.
Definition 2. lack of compliance or adherence, as to a standard, specification, regulation, or the like.

This is why the standard uses the term nonconformity I think. This is not to say nonconformance is not a word, but I have yet to find it in a dictionary.

-> to my ear, nonconformance is more of a state, or
-> collective term, nonconformity, more appropriate to
-> describe an instance. Please excuse my prejudice that to
-> discuss a subject clearly, the terms used require clear
-> definitions

Life is full of little inconsistencies. This is just one.

See This Thread (http://Elsmar.com/level2/m-vs-m.html)

KPMG did not start major and minor findings. It is from the original ISO. Not from the ISO 9001 document but it was part of the original registration scheme.

There are documents available to registrars that are not available to you or me. I forget the main document name or who authored it. The number 67 or 65 rings a bell. Anyway, the idea was and is to provide some classification of findings.

There is a third 'finding'. It was originally called an 'observation' which was typically the opinion of an auditor on how you could improve something. This is often called an 'opportunity for improvement' as well. But - it is nothing less than an opinion and as we all know, opinions are like a__holes - everyone has at least one.

-> A quick search of the archives here turned up the rule
-> that 5 to 7 minors = a major in in old standard, which I
-> guess at this point would be the old, old standard.

This was a very early 'rule of thumb - 5 to 7 minors in any one 'category' or element was a major. It did not really make sense as in companies of 5000+ employees one expects to find more minors than in a company of 100 employees. Registrars each seem to come up with their own thresholds these days.

Maybe someone working for a registrar can shed some light here.

Thanks, Marc.

If the major/minor scheme disappeared from the standard at least two revisions ago, why does it linger in many companies' corrective action and audit systems?

I don't see anything about majors and minors in the 1994 standard some of our offices are registered to, but the criteria that is advertised for passing a registration or surveilance audit is "no major nonconformances". This is with a registrar who's auditing to the standard, and the passing grade is based on an undefined (in the standard) category of an undefined (in the standard) deviation. I don't get it.

If I'm the customer for the registrar's service and my requirement is to be audited against the standard, and the registrar is using criteria that have no basis in the standard, how is that meeting my requirement?

Self declaration is looking better and better to me.

Always a pleasure visiting here,

Rex

Major and Minor were never in ISO 9001. That was and is part of the registrars' documentation. I don't know that you have to use it internally - there is no requirement for you to. But the convention is to use them to classify what is 'serious' and what is not. It's sorta like you don't do a corrective action every time there is the slightest nonconformance - you'd be doing corrective action reports all the time.

You 'don't get it' because it is not a stated requirement of ISO 9001. That does not mean it is not part of the REGISTRAR'S requirements.

Just out of curiosity, is there a specific reason you object to major and minor classifications? I have for a long time objected to 'observation' (aka opportunity for improvement) as some auditors use them as a hammer to some degree (and I'm not convinced auditors are always qualified to say what is 'an opportunity for improvement). But major and minor never bugged me.

I don't have a problem with registrars using the major and minor breakdown, and most have it pretty well defined. But to have a major/minor scheme for an internal CA system seems confusing. If I were to audit such a system, I'd look carefully at the definitions being used and how and who is judging severity. The next question that comes to mind is how do they differ in being taken care of within the system.

IMO, don't get wrapped up in majors and minors in internal systems. It either works or it doesn't; if it doesn't work, fix it.

Before I get lambasted for promoting CA's for every little thing, keep in mind that many fixes are quick and not worth writing up. Discretion is key. But if a CA is warrented for a problem, it's past the point of being minor.

I don't see it as a big deal internally whether you use the two or not. The important part is how you decide what, if any, corrective action has to be taken when a nonconformity is identified.

It just seems like excess baggage to me.

I'm working with a QMS developed at another office in my company, that features these, I guess through parroting what the registrar has to say when they come to town. I want to understand where it comes from and decide if I think it's a good idea, before mounting a challenge to an entrenched system.

My take on its use is that things rarely get labelled major, because that's equivalent to a confession that the certificate should be pulled. If not used, why have it, other than to give the registrar something else to ding you over?

Rex

I also do not care for the major minor thing, but in spite of not wanting the registrar to see "majors, someone who doesn't know where a procedure is-has an obsolete copy in their possession-displays ignorance to what's in a procedure in their domain, has to get a major. That's not even close to minor. We just have to follow up with a very strong CAR, including and up to disciplinary action. A registrar then knows you are serious about your certification.(registration)(accreditation)whatever!
energy

Good comments regarding the "major" and "minor" CA. We are a company that designs, and builds products for the communications industry. We use "Problem Reports" for everything that occurs on the production floor - primarily to track non-conforming material. This allows the production manager to resolve them. All Problem Peports are entered into a database for all management people (including QA-me) to review. This allows "trends" (remember that word??) to be noticed..."hmmm..ten bad power supplies in the last month, maybe we have a trend?" The key here is that a CAR can be issued for a GROUP of problem reports, or even one - this "judgement" is built into the policy. This is our "weasel" clause, and it works well. This also empowers production staff to report other things that are not working, poorly written instructions that take forever to follow, lack of tools, etc... without QA chasing them down to investigate everything. Put the power to resolve where it is needed - the production mgr., BUT QA gets to monitor the system and ask questions. Less work for QA, but the control remains.

For Trakman

I like the fact that someone is looking at a way of using the corrective action system intelligently.

I have come up with a similar technique for our company. All nonconformances are submitted on a D.C.A.R. (Discrepancy/Corrective Action Report). Then, the decision on types of corrective action (if any) is made by the material review board.

This way, we can still track trends in nonconformance occurance, scrap, rework, without performing costly corrective action for everything.

Many companies seem to forget about determining the "Maginitude of the Problem...", and blindly perform corrective action on everything. Eventually, the system becomes a tedius nightmare with no teeth to it.

From the ListServe:

********************************

From: Nancy Jennejohn <jennejohnn@uwstout.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 22:51:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Findings vs. Observations - Part II/Holtz/Arter

From: Dennis Arter <Arter@Quality.Org>

John Holtz recently wrote:
> I'm not absolutely sure it clears up the problem - everyone seems
> to want the flexibility of hedging on a nonconformity -- but it
> clarifies why the water is muddy. [Is that clear?] This same
> discussion can be extended to cover "major" and "minor"

When speaking of bad conclusions, there are basically two terms now being used: Finding and Nonconformity. A finding may apply in both compliance and management (performance) audits. [See my June 2000 Quality Progress article for more detailed discussion on these two forms of the audit.] A nonconformity may only apply to compliance audits.

Until the recent 9K2K revisions, "nonconformity" was really a made-up term. But like most, it has its foundation in history.

Third party QMS or EMS registration is an extension of conformity assessment, which has been around for many decades. Conformity assessment was designed for the international shipment of products. When a shipload of grain arrived in Tokyo, the Japanese customers wanted assurance that it was good stuff before they unloaded the ship. So they would hire an independent inspector to sample the grain. Eventually, these inspectors were approved by the government or the shipping companies. Then governments accepted other government-approved inspectors. Conformity assessment. There's a whole committee in ISO, called CASCO, dealing with these matters.

Well, if you're going to assess the conformance of something or someone and it isn't conforming, then you are going to call the results a "nonconformity." Back when only products were being assessed, the term was just fine. It was go or no-go, conforming or nonconforming. But when we started to apply the concept to management systems, it became considerably harder.

We were looking at so much more than just products. Business and egos and reputations were on the line. Should you reject a company for an itty-bitty mistake?

So, the various registrars started classifying these nonconformities. Most settled on "major" and "minor." A major nonconformity meant you were really screwed up. No certificate. A minor nonconformity was like a risk release. "We will give you the certificate on risk, but you gotta fix the problems before we come back." To this day, there is no universal agreement on these terms. Different registrars use them differently. That's fine. We need choices when it comes to conformity assessment providers.

Dennis

Also see http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum13/HTML/000039.html and http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000175.html for some other related thoughts.

Edited 18 December 2001

I can't re-lookup and change every old link to posts in the old forums. Most of them *should* still be there. If you want to find the post in the New forums, if the link to the thread in the old forums works (most of them should...), look at the thread (topic) title and what forum it is in. Then back here in the New forums - go to that forum and look for the thread topic title - OR - do a Search for the key words from Title (Note - you can search entire threads or just the 'subject' or 'title' - if you look in the Forums search page you'll see the options.

Call me lazy... :rolleyes:

I need some help with this, please:)

Currently our offshore crews send in every broken part or piece of equipment along with a nonconformance report. It doesn't matter if it is a relatively new piece that is under warranty, or if it is near the end of its expected lifespan, or if it was being used inappropriately which is what caused it to fail. These "nonconformances" are logged both offshore and onshore. If the equipment is under warranty, it goes in for repair or replacement. When it is rec'd back, the NCR is closed. If it is not under warranty, the NCR is just noted as "closed" and that's the end of it; we throw it away.

I've never liked the sound of this and now that I'm writing the Control of Nonconforming Product procedure, I'm liking it less. The thing is: I want to reserve the term "nonconformance" to an action or lack of action rather than applying it to a product. In my mind, the fact that the equipment failed is not a nonconformance in of itself. We may discover though, that the required maintenance had not been done (according to our procedure) or that it had not been properly used (as according to our procedure) and those would be the nonconformances. The simple fact of a piece of equipment failing is not the nonconformance.

Even if the part is under warranty, as long as the vendor handles the return of the part as agreed under our warranty, the vendor has not been nonconforming. There may be a nonconformance on our end if we keep ordering parts from this vendor that consistently fail, whether they are responsive to replacing them or not.:), or a nonconformance on the vendor's side that keeps producing bad stuff (...but that is for them to track and correct based on our returns...).

"Nonconforming product" refers specifically to product (or service), so this seems to be the appropriate place to discuss equipment or part failure that impacts our ability to provide our service as contracted, or bad material identified through incoming inspection or final product testing.

My problem? I'm finding it hard to discuss a nonconforming product without using the term "nonconformity" or "nonconformance" ...as in " the type of nonconformity will be identified and communicated to all affected parties...":ko:

So how do I do this? And am I right about the distinction? Some of the staff members are saying to me "If the part is under warranty to work for 3 years and it fails during that three years, how can you say that it isn't a nonconformance? it failed to meet the requirements" And my reply is that the term "nonconformance should be reserved for the determination that we have not followed our internal procedures, or contractual obligations, or ISO "

Help!:bigwave:

While it's hard to differentiate between the two, I say it was a material defect issue. There is a distinction between the two. I just don't know what it is. I think you will lose the battle on the nonconformance issue because it's too broad. Defective equipment is viewed by the Customer as a nonconformance which covers "everything under the sun that doesn't go right" Don't fight the impossible minor crapolla, concentrate on the bigees. Maybe you don't want to face the fact that your stuff just doesn't measure up to what's promised.:agree: It's OK, you didn't design or build it. Keep up the struggle. When I see junk coming back, I blame the customer for abuse. 75% of the time, it is!:bonk: :smokin:

I have been in couple of companies that have used two different ISO/QS systems. The first (1) company took the time and money to fix the problems when they occured. (1) put less of a system together, but did act quickly and effectively.
The second Company (2) made this very elaborate ISO/QS system with all of the bells and whistles. (2) called out Non-conformance, observations, opportunities, etc...... The Kicker was that company (2) was not really willing to really fix the problems. The fact was they had not really bought into the ISO/QS Systems program. They just were worried about the how to catagorize problems and did we squeak by in the audit for reg. What can we get by with to attract new biz!! (TROPHY)
So, when you look at problem system ask yourself this question::p
"Are you really going to address this issue (Non-conformance,observations, opportunities, etc......)
and fix (develop detailed system):eek: or just passify registar and Company Upper Mgt". MAKE CONSTRUCTIVE WAVES:thedeal:

Originally posted by Greg Maggard
So, when you look at problem system ask yourself this question::p
"Are you really going to address this issue (Non-conformance,observations, opportunities, etc......)
and fix (develop detailed system):eek: or just passify registar and Company Upper Mgt. MAKE CONSTRUCTIVE WAVES:thedeal:

Soooooo, what's your point!:vfunny: That's us. I'd like peace in the world, too. But, it's out of my hands. Keep your feet on the ground and your head out of the clouds:ko: :smokin:

I'm a straight shooter man! NO FLUFF:ko: :rolleyes: :D

If I want it to look good on paper I ask management, If I want it to be a functional work instruction or system that can be used I ask the people. You know the "Golden Goose" :eek: The people that run the stuff mgt usually write about from their desks. ouch a paper cut!!hehehe

Lucinda, Been there, done that. A few years ago I worked for a manufacturer of downhole oil tools,i.e., for measuring pressure flow, temp. These operate in an extremely harsh environment and are subject to malfunction if not properly used.
The term "non-compliance " or non-conformity never entered the picture. They were all returned through the returns department for test and inspection.
Based on our findings (I prefer that term) a responsible group was identified, i.e, vendor error, Mfg. error, operator mis-use. With cause and corrective action to follow.
The #1 reason a tool was returned was "warranty failure", Normally test and inspection would prove otherwise.

Lucinda,

Sam's situation is ideal as it puts the "non conformance" on hold until determination has been made as to the reason for failure. Why not use your "Return Goods Authorization" system to replace the Nonconformance Report. We allow returned material to come back before intitating any Corrective Action. Sometimes the customer didn't order correctly, or we ship incorrectly because the data entry person had happy fingers. Either way, WE control how it is returned. Do away with those old forms. Explain to your senior management that creating the nonconformance will happen when it is determined that it is really your company's responsibility. The reluctance to do so may tell you that they have no faith in their equipment to perform to expectations. In that case nonconformance reports are in order!:bonk: :ko: :smokin:

The crews sending the failed or broken parts back to shore are our crews and the parts are those that we purchase from our vendors. Everything that needs to be replaced is sent into our office along with a nonconformance report. The offshore guys know very well if something is under warranty or not (they have computers that keep this information), as well as the conditions under which the part broke (or failed). They are still required to file a NCR for everything - even a failed gasket that was due to be replaced anyway.

So this isn't an issue of our clients returning manufactured parts to us because of failure. We do have a small design and assembly dept. for subsea intervention tooling, but have never had a returned tool in our history (a whopping 4 years).

Within the context of the new Corrective and Preventive Action procedure I've written, the parts that our crews send in can still be returned with a form, but I want it to be called a Problem Report (along the lines of Trakman's). Then when it is rec'd onshore, someone is responsible for reviewing the circumstances of failure and determining if a CAR should be raised. A CAR is not necessarily raised simply because a part failed -under warranty or not. A CAR would be raised if it is apparent that a nonconformance to one of our procedures has occurred, or if there needs to be an investigation to determine if there has been a nonconformance. Some things can simply be dismissed, such as the old parts that were due for replacement anyway, or the things that broke because they were damaged due to rough water, etc. (something that is unavoidable in subsea construction)

It is still valuable to track the Problems, while not referring to every one of them as nonconformances. Again, I say that the part failing is not a nonconformance. A "nonconformance" is a person not acting as required, not a piece of equipment not acting as required. The piece of equipment is a Nonconforming Product if it fails to meet requirements. It may be a nonconforming product because of a person's nonconformance, or it may be a nonconforming product because a witch flew in front of the moon.

But then again, what the heck kind of requirements are we expecting out of a piece of equipment? That it work forever and never break down no matter how old or misused???

My problem lies in writing a procedure for control of nonconforming product. This is our nonconforming product that we have to control (not our vendor's - which is what we're dealing with above). We control nonconforming product by making sure that the tools we design and deliver meet the customer req's and by making sure the service we provide to our customers meets the contract. When we identify that the raw materials we use, etc. doesn't meet our specs we do all those things we're supposed to.

But here is my dilemna: Am I correct in reserving the term "nonconformance" as I've described above? (the failure to act according to requirements) And then to refer to all the equipment failures as Problems, that are then reviewed to see if a nonconformance has occurred? (holding that equipment failing, even during warranty time, is not a nonconformance of itself) And that nonconforming product obviously is the reference to product that fails to meet requirements.

Does our vendor consider a returned warranty item, a "nonconforming product? in his QMS (if he has one)

And do I address warranty return issues in my nonconforming product procedure? Returns to our vendors, as well as returns to our tooling design and assembly department (which has never happened, but it could).:confused:

Originally posted by Lucinda
It is still valuable to track the Problems, while not referring to every one of them as nonconformances. Again, I say that the part failing is not a nonconformance. A "nonconformance" is a person not acting as required, not a piece of equipment not acting as required. The piece of equipment is a Nonconforming Product if it fails to meet requirements. It may be a nonconforming product because of a person's nonconformance, or it may be a nonconforming product because a witch flew in front of the moon.


Lucy.

It may be nonconforming because it did not meet it's design requirements. I'm also confused, like you, with your paragraph above. Let me see: A part failing is NOT a nonconformance. A part failing to meet requirements IS a nonconformance. What's the difference? :bonk: It was engineered to perform correctly for a certain amount of time. Sea roughness, gasket replacements, wear and tear, etc.. I just don't get it, sweet thing. of course, it might just be me!:ko: :smokin:

All rightee then...

I'm going to jump right in here, not sure if it is going to be helpful or not. I have used a nonconforming purchased item form since I began my QA career. It is filled out whenever we find something not to our purchase agreement or spec, or if it fails. From those reports, we would assess the seriousness/consequences and then make a decision as to whether or not to issue a corrective action request to our vendor.

i.e. if it is a warrantee item, yes go ahead and issue a corrective action request, if it is something that has lived its life then no, just note that in the disposition of the report and move on.

This gives you data for assessment of your suppliers, as well as information to see if there are other corrective or preventive measures to be taken.

Does any of this make any sense???

Steelmaiden,

Makes sense, but Lucinda would rather not use a Nonconformance Report for items that fail in service. Therein lays the rub:frust: :ko: :smokin:

Maiden,
So you're saying that we should issue a CAR to the supplier when we return warranty items? That's fine, if that's what we should do. Then the onus is on them to research root cause if they want to? It is OK then for us to close this CAR simply by receiving the replacement part back from them? Or are we supposed to require them to investigate,etc. I can tell you that since we only have a single supplier for the majority of the items we use, they could just laugh in our face about it. No matter what they do or don't do, we have to use them.

Energy, it isn't that I don't want to use a NCR for equipment failing in service, it is that I don't think you can call the equipment failure the nonconformance When a Problem Report detailing the age and use of the equipment at failure is rec'd in the office, if it looks suspect then we would issue a CAR because 1) the part wouldn't have failed if the crew hadn't pushed it beyond the scheduled maintenance time or 2)our purchasing dept. substituted a lower priced part and had not run the approval of the substitute part through our technical dept. or 3) the crew didn't verify the equipment that they took out on the boat with them before they left the dock and didn't have the proper tool and used this one which was not supposed to be used in this manner, ....etc etc etc.

In those cases, the nonconformances are cited against the failure to adhere to the procedure. The nonconformance is not the part failing! The nonconformance report (or actually, the CAR since this is our form that details the nonconformance, the procedure, etc. and what was previously known as a NCR for these equipment things is going away....) is against the failure of the process .

Although I will issue a CAR to the vendor when we return a warranty item (per SteelMaiden's recommendation), and the corrective action we're requesting is for the warranty to be honored, I don't see that it is a nonconformance on the part of the vendor if he honors the warranty. A warranty simply says that if the equipment fails to work for a certain time it will be repaired or replaced. That is our "contract" with the vendor and if he does this, then there is not a nonconformance. If he failed to honor the warranty, then we certainly have a nonconformance and would issue a CAR. We may also choose to issue a CAR if we have multiple instances of the same type of equipment failing ( and we would need to issue one in-house also to find out why this is the part we keep using - obviously it isn't cut out for our purposes).

Not trying to be argumentative. It is so much easier to do this over a desk or a beer. Hashing things out. And it is so beneficial to hear what you think about nonconformance and nonconforming product and how it works in other companies. My take is just my take and it is based on limited exposure to real life, although I've had my share of theory.

(don't bash your face energy...looks bad enough already! j/k:biglaugh: )

Lucinda,

Only issue the CAR if you wish formal corrective action...don't close it until you are sure that their corrective action worked. It's your call to define when to issue a CAR. We don't issue one for every problem, only if it is 1) critical, 2) repeated, 3) causes us a significant loss.

Originally posted by Lucinda
Maiden,
we would issue a CAR because 1) the part wouldn't have failed if the crew hadn't pushed it beyond the scheduled maintenance time or 2)our purchasing dept. substituted a lower priced part and had not run the approval of the substitute part through our technical dept. or 3) the crew didn't verify the equipment that they took out on the boat with them before they left the dock and didn't have the proper tool and used this one which was not supposed to be used in this manner, ....etc etc etc.
.
(don't bash your face energy...looks bad enough already![/B]

Lucy,

O.K....Now I understand. Your previous posts, I think:ko: , didn't mention why the equipment was failing in service. Boy, you have more than just the type of report to use problems. Either it's not cost effective to have people slow down and make sure they do it right, or you're the only one who cares!:vfunny: As for my face, remember the old kid saying? "Stick and Stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me." Especially from one who's avitar is non-existant!:biglaugh: You can always wear Ken's bag!:vfunny:
You know, now that I think about it, not one female has ever put her beautiful mug on this site. Why's that, you think? Like, we may all go crazy with desire? Or are the women in the Quality arena a cross between Britney Spears and Charles Bronson? Or Jennifer Lopez and Ernest Borgnine? :biglaugh: :smokin:

Getting back to the issue of nonconformance and nonconformity, I think QS does the best job at distinguishing the two. I love QS-9000. It is by far the best document ever written. That is why it needs no sanctioned interpretations.

[I’m working from memory here – My QS is about 50 miles away]

A nonconformance is product that does not meet specifications.
A nonconformity is a process that does not meet specifications.

So, when you go to 4.13; Control of Nonconforming Product, they identify nonconforming product as nonconformities.

That should clear it up!

Dave B (the other Dave)
:bonk:

No, more like "It Lurks Below":biglaugh: :biglaugh:

For the equipment failing, the examples I gave are just examples of what I see as the difference between a nonconformance and a simple part failure....not necessarily things that are common around here, but not entirely unlikely either. So that's why we would need to look at the reason a part failed to determine if there has been a nonconformance and where it lies, or if a part failed just because it did and there was no wrong doing on our part, and the supplier can also demonstrate that there is no particular wrong doing on his part either. He sold us something and statistically it was just our turn to get the bad one, so apologies all around and here is a new one.

Thanks Maiden, makes sense to me. We'll issue a CAR with the returned warranty item whenever we have determined there was no ill use on our end and it is a critical component we can't afford to have fail again. For non-critical components, we will return for repair or replacement and keep a log to track frequency (and keep a spare onboard with us) until we determine that there are far too many occurrences and then issue a CAR. Is that right?

A nonconformance is product that does not meet specifications. A nonconformity is a process that does not meet specifications.So, when you go to 4.13; Control of Nonconforming Product, they identify nonconforming product as nonconformities.


Shouldn't it be the other way around, Dave?:confused:

Lucinda,

"Shouldn't it be the other way around"

Absolutely!!!!! And that is why QS-9000 needs sanctioned interpretations. If they don't know their own rules, how can they expect you to know them?

My post was a tad bit cynical! Okay, maybe more than a tad bit!



Dave B (the other Dave)

Dave,

I don't have a QS standard around and so my question is real....Is that really what QS says, or is that the way you remember it (and you are remembering it wrong) ?

What does QS say, and what should it really say?:confused:

Okay, I was forced to find a copy here. Here is the scoop!

From the Glossary (page 129):

Nonconformance: “Nonconformance is product or material which does not conform to the customer requirements or specifications.”
Nonconformity: “Nonconformity is a process which does not conform to a quality system requirement.”

From Control of Nonconforming Product – Element 4.13

“…The description of the nonconformity that has been accepted, and of repairs…”

Some may argue that the nonconformity stated in 4.13 deals with the process that created the nonconforming product, however if you read the entire paragraph, it really doesn’t make sense that way.

Now I’m probably in BIG trouble!!!:eek: :frust: :eek:


Dave B (the other Dave)

O.K. O.K.
Staying on the subject of nonconformance and nonconformity as hinted to, the ISO Standard 2001:2000 does not mention “Nonconformance” anywhere. It refers to “Non Conforming Product” and “nonconformities”. The Guideline 9004-2000 says “...the organization may also decide that nonconformities to both product realization and support processes should be recorded and controlled...”.

There is a reference to “conformance” in the Fundamental Vocabulary 9000-2000. It is as follows: ”...3.6.1 Conformity-fulfilment (that’s how it’s spelled in the Standard document) of a requirement...”.

“Note 1…This definition is consistent with ISO/IEC Guide 2 but differs from it in phasing to fit into the ISO 9000 concepts.” (whatever that means?)

“Note 2… The term “conformance” is synonymous but deprecated.” Thesaurus says deprecated means: denounce, deplore, criticize, condemn, censure, disapprove of, protest against, decry, belittle and speak out against. They don’t approve of “conformance”, so it stands to reason they won’t like ”nonconformance”.

I just love ISO 2001:2000. No need to differentiate between the two because there are not two choices. Now, that’s progressive.
:vfunny: :smokin:

Lucy, Now that's an Avitar!:ko:

WOW!!!!!!!!!:p

I really re-opened a can of worms, I think you guys were just waiting for this.:bigwave: :lick:

Has helped me imensely:agree:

Long ago and far away...

A nonconformance was something that was nonconforming for any reason - a process, an assembly - whatever.

A nonconformity was an individual, specific nonconformance 'item'. This is to say, a nonconforming product (let's say a circuit card) could have numerous nonconformities. :thedeal:

But I'm so old that the definitions have evolved.

Originally posted by Greg Maggard
I'm a straight shooter man! NO FLUFF:ko: :rolleyes: :D

I believe we're all straight shooters here. You can only shoot as straight as the instrument given to you by the organization you work for. If they give you a rifle with a bend in it like a candy cane, you do the best you can. Shoot a little left, high, low, right or behind you. Compensate. If you are alloted time to dream about what you would like to do and they also allocate the resources for your scheme, you are a lucky guy. Most of those I know in the business aren't so fortunate. :rolleyes: :smokin: