Nonconformity Reporting at Installation Sites

Hello All,

I am finally compelled to issue my first post on the forum!

The company I work for carries out the majority of it's work out on site at customer factories, warehouses etc. (electrical installations and commissioning); as this is a new ballgame for me having come from a 'traditional' manufacturing environment, I'm in a bit of a grey area when it comes to complying with the control of nonconformity requirement (ISO9001). Currently we use SharePoint to 'track issues', which are assigned an owner, named, date due, priority level, location and completion notification. While this system seems to work I can't see any evidence of corrective and preventive action being recorded.

My questions really are:

1. I need to add a column for 'corrective action' as a minimum for compliance, would you agree?
2. Is a statement of 'preventive action' required for every issue, if so I cannot see this adding any value and/or being adhered to, as most issue are dealt with on the spot and closed out without any fuss?
3. Any other comments on this proposed system of 'control of nonconforming product'??

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated, thanks.
greenfen

greenfen said:

.............. as this is a new ballgame for me having come from a 'traditional' manufacturing environment, I'm in a bit of a grey area when it comes to complying with the control of nonconformity requirement (ISO9001). ...................

Click to expand...

Welcome to the Cove.

The first thing I would encourage you to do is to go around the site and understand how work is being carried out, approved and documented.

Generally, a lot of work of this nature is subjected to continuous monitoring and inspection by various parties such as your own supervisors, the main contractor's supervising team as well as those from the supervising engineers and perhaps the client. At other times, it could be based on approved samples of work. So, I don't generally expect to see much NCs'.

Hi Greenfen,

We need some more information to keep us from guessing/misleading. "Tracking issues" could be a simple work list that has nothing to do with Corrective Actions or it could mean a nonconformance list which would be a great data input into a corrective action system, or it could be a CA list.

Numerous discussion have taken place about corrective vs preventative actions check them out to help you clarify, but NO a preventative action is not required for each issue.

Hi isoalchemist,

Basically we don't have a 'formal' non-conformance reporting system i.e. no forms/reports specifically for nonconforming product. The business end is carried out on construction sites and is project-based. No product nonconformities are raised and the nearest thing we have is a list of issues per project, raised and resolved in SharePoint. On site however, issues do occur such as software bugs, material shortages and design misinterpretations/errors. All site workers have been encouraged (not by me) to log any 'issues' into the project folder on SharePoint and resolve them this way.

I'm in the process of implementing an ISO9001-compliant system and this is where were at with regards to a non-conformance reporting system. When I come to documenting the (mandatory) 'Control of Nonconforming product' procedure I would more than happy to use a SharePoint based system like this to capture all issues and just wondered whether by just adding a new column for "Corrective Action taken" (instead of a paper form) this would be adequate? Of course, workflows will be added to prompt and assign actions to individuals to fill in the "Corrective Action" bit and control any 'closure' of issue items.

Or, as I interpret it, do I really need to instigate a CA/PA process for 'Product' only i.e. the bits that are assembled in the factory?

Please let me know if you require more info, I'm aware I'm rambling on a bit!!

You have an issues list that is a mixture of nonconformance's and other stuff. This is not a CA system. Nothing is wrong with keeping this work list and it's a good way to keep everyone informed.

Now how can you build upon it to begin to use it as an information tool. IMHO not all issues are non conformances. If you can add a another column to the DB that allows "authorized individuals (probably you)" to categorize the issue and use this to determine when a CA is needed. Design errors appear like they are an automatic CA, materials shortages would be very dependent and could be an oops or a problem especially if the same issue is repeated.

Your CA should be both internal and external. You potentially have a great wealth of available information that could drive improvement. Use it to decide if a problem does exist and fix the problems not the individual issues.

Don't get too 'blindsided' by the typical approach to nonconformity in a manufacturing environment. While yes, one does need a procedure, one does NOT have to have a separate procedure titled nonconformity. I have (for example) in a service environment, sometimes dealt with this within a procedure /process flow for normal work (eg, 'if it doesn't pass inspection/isn't OK, redo it until it does).
1. You need to have some records that indicate what action/s are taken. So a column that indicates 'Action' is probably a good idea. Again, does not HAVE to say 'corrective' action or 'preventive' action!
2. No. Some issues require further preventive action, some don't. Keep it simple.

But before that, I strongly agree with Harry's advice: understand what they do and how they do it really well, before you start thinking about any changes. Because you're going to need to do some thinking of your own and examining your own assumptions about what 'has to' exist and be done, if your only experience to date has been in manufacturing.

And do, do, do translate it into whatever language makes sense to them. Because talking about NC, CA and PA a lot is often a really 'good' way to turn people off the whole idea of 9001, and particularly in a services environment.

Thanks to everyone for the advice / feedback.

This a great forum for quality professionals and I will now be tempted to post more 'thinking aloud'!

Best Regards.

greenfen said:

Thanks to everyone for the advice / feedback.

This a great forum for quality professionals and I will now be tempted to post more 'thinking aloud'!

Best Regards.

Click to expand...

Most welcome, and do not forget the search tool and the post attachment list (top of this page) and similar discussion threads (down this page)

greenfen said:

My questions really are:

1. I need to add a column for 'corrective action' as a minimum for compliance, would you agree?
2. Is a statement of 'preventive action' required for every issue, if so I cannot see this adding any value and/or being adhered to, as most issue are dealt with on the spot and closed out without any fuss?
3. Any other comments on this proposed system of 'control of nonconforming product'??

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated, thanks.
greenfen

Click to expand...

We use SharePoint for documenting a variety of things including access to our QMS documentation. We do not use it for live production work, but we do track activities and hand-offs of Business Development opportunities and various tasks for process owners. It provides for visibility and accountability for staff and management.

If you are using SharePoint as the vehicle to document the Identification and Control of nonconforming product (service), then that environment should have additional categories to document the various activities. This would include details about:

- Actions taken for: Repairs, Rework, Replacement as a Corrective Action... (re-verification of any CA done)

- Authorized use (conditional or permanent) of current condition (concessions allowed to modify requirements)...

- Limiting the use of the product / service if it is no longer suitable in current condition (clearly state what new limits are)...

Preventive Action (PA) would quite often come after analysis of data... looking to reduce future defects or improve efficiencies / effectiveness. Root Cause Analysis (RCA) may point to common causes such as training, specific material supply chain or even poorly worded contracts (unclear requirements). Suggestions from the field can be evaluated and change instituted that could affect other sites. Always keep an open mind to go with open eyes... you may experience the Ah-Ha! moment :mg: