Are these things a thing of the past? Does anybody out here use that term anymore to describe who is responsible for reviewing nonconformances and ultimate dispositions? Or, is it a carry over from the DOD days?

Ex-Chairman of the MRB.:cool: :smokin:

This function (for nonconforming material in the plant) is handled by the QA Auditors, QA Manager and Material Manager taking appropriate actions as necessary. We have nothing that refers to a MRB.

:rolleyes: Of course, we are a mfg plant not the Corp office...and they technically handle the supplier complaints and only forward to us what they want our participation on. :ko:

Eileen

We still use a material review board. It seems like if you don't schedule it to be done, and if you don't have at least a couple of folks from different areas to kind of keep everybody on track, it just doesn't get done.

We tried to just tell 2 people to coordingate it and get it taken care of, unfortunately it became a low priority item then and they couldn't seem to pull it together. Now they have to meet every week and submit a report on their findings to the steering committee (which meets once a week, the day after MRB)

Energy,

I haven't heard that term in a long time...although I think it has been renamed a dozen different things, a rose is a rose!

CarolX

We just put a MRB back in place, because as SteelMaiden pointed out, it wasn't getting done. However, the last time I used that term was when I had a job with a medical device companay. I thought maybe, it was a term used in regulated industries. I guess not.

Carol,

Nice allusion to the Law of Identity. Sometimes we all get to worried about names and titles and not the actual activity.

We have daily meetings that review the scrap in our machine shop. There are representatives from the machine shop, our foundry, and QA (reviewing vendor items). Like the others, review was not getting done until we had a formalized meeting. In addition to correctly identifying the source of defective product these meeting have become a great source of entertainment. There is no pride in ownership and the altercations that result rival the Ali – Foreman matches.

I set up a MRB in our plant > (we called it IRB- Incident Review Board)

Sad part was after I > opushed to elect a chairperson > turned the reins over to "the group" after ex-plaining (training) their roles in disposition/ Root cause analysis > Corrective action decisions etc. - the clear Barirers . Percieved (that Top Mgt would not support their decisions) all but KO'd any action they were willing to take.

IMHO > Review boards are "one" good way to go IF the business culture will allow them to work...

Originally posted by energy
Are these things a thing of the past? Does anybody out here use that term anymore to describe who is responsible for reviewing nonconformances and ultimate dispositions? Or, is it a carry over from the DOD days?

Ex-Chairman of the MRB.:cool: :smokin:

Energy,

After working for a defense contractor, I carried the MRB concept over to another employer for several years, but have since dropped it. I'm not surprised that some people are resurrecting it though. It was a good process if participation was consistent.

Hank

I'm currently putting together our Control of Nonconforming Product and Corrective Action procedures. In the past we always used the MRB Board to decide actions. The standard doesn't talk about that. Us "senior" folks remember MRB's as the cat's as-. Some Customers would not let you convene the Board without their permission. The same thing applies today, just another name. Whatever that is.:bonk: I believe it's your Corrective Action System. Fancy:p You notice that I have avoided Preventive Action Procedure. Mainly because of the verying opinions in the Cove, I'm sitting on that, for now. I'm thinking of calling the board the WDC Board. (We don't care):ko: :smokin:

We too once had an MRB which had since disbanded about 6 years ago. Well, the NCP has been building up and I have been asked to "get a group of folks" to manage the "non conformance cage". I believe the reason the MRB failed in the first place was because it was considered the QA departments. I would now like our Accounting Department to lead the effort.
I have been asked to develop the strawman on the new MRB and want to proposed this structure - (money talks, people listen). Anyone else have this type of arrangement?

Any references on how to structure MRB (e.g. makeup, charter, procedure, examples) are appreciated.

everest

I like the idea of using accounting on the board. If the activities of the board can be seen to be tied to the bottom line, support should be easy to muster.

Energy, we have a board, and we are nothing like the med device or aerospace industries - just good old white dirt processing.

The basic approach is the same.

We too once had an MRB which had since disbanded about 6 years ago. Well, the NCP has been building up and I have been asked to "get a group of folks" to manage the "non conformance cage". I believe the reason the MRB failed in the first place was because it was considered the QA departments. I would now like our Accounting Department to lead the effort.
I have been asked to develop the strawman on the new MRB and want to proposed this structure - (money talks, people listen). Anyone else have this type of arrangement?

Any references on how to structure MRB (e.g. makeup, charter, procedure, examples) are appreciated.
Structure details vary company-to-company based on your needs. We required a QA and senior engineering person to be present at minimum, and called on others as needed, always inviting department managers or their representatives, but we did not stop if they decided not to show-up. Adding finance might very well help things. We set-up authority levels based on the max. dollar value any position could disposition, all the way up to the Prez. We also made it very clear that the MRB could NOT waive any customer specification to "use-as-is" -- if a customer spec. was violated it was either scrapped, repaired, or we got a written waiver from the customer. Sometimes MRBs think they have the authority to waive things for the customer but I say not unless the customer expressly gives you that right.

We HAD an MRB on paper when our company first got ISO certified.

With our small size and small number of NC materials and parts (that are not out right returned to the supplier or scrapped within the production areas), a Formal board to review a few bad parts or materials was a waste of time and paperwork.

The new NonConforming procedure I created to conform with ISO9k2k and OUR needs simplified the flow and outlined who can decide what to do with the NC stuff. (Besides purchasing deals with the returns and paperwork).

Although our small NC cage area does need some reviewing and cleaning out, the actual review is typically done on the spot and usually does not require a committe to say "yup it's bad".

Thanks Mike S

I like the idea of using the finacial value levels to determine disposition of ancient non conforming stock. Our Y2K NCP procedure has streamlined disposition but there are cases where occassional housekeeping is needed. I envision the MRB meet on an as-needed based dependent on some trigger determined by the Accountants. Representation from various functions as you stated. Thanks again