When to use a Nonconforming Material Report

QLearning

Involved In Discussions
I have searched and reviewed other discussions on Nonconformity Reports (NCRs) and Nonconforming Material Reports (NCMRs), and still need input for my question. I am revising our Control of Nonconforming Product procedure, and need to know when/if we need to fill out a NCMR.

We are a manufacturing company. We have a process in place that includes QC inspection of product as it moves through the assembly process. When QC identifies a board that is nonconforming (e.g., component misaligned, solder not sufficient, etc.), QC tags the board and sends it to rework. In these instances, our QC does not fill out an NCMR.

1) do they have to in these simple cases?
2) does finding the one board with insufficient solder (for example) really need to trigger the "control of nonconforming product" procedure (which requires Material Review Board to review and make disposition decision)??

I know if it's a "big" problem, we will need to, but for the occasional one or two boards with quality issues that can easily be reworked, do we need to implement the full procedure?

Help and thanks in advance.
 

AndyN

Moved On
I have searched and reviewed other discussions on Nonconformity Reports (NCRs) and Nonconforming Material Reports (NCMRs), and still need input for my question. I am revising our Control of Nonconforming Product procedure, and need to know when/if we need to fill out a NCMR.

We are a manufacturing company. We have a process in place that includes QC inspection of product as it moves through the assembly process. When QC identifies a board that is nonconforming (e.g., component misaligned, solder not sufficient, etc.), QC tags the board and sends it to rework. In these instances, our QC does not fill out an NCMR.

1) do they have to in these simple cases?
2) does finding the one board with insufficient solder (for example) really need to trigger the "control of nonconforming product" procedure (which requires Material Review Board to review and make disposition decision)??

I know if it's a "big" problem, we will need to, but for the occasional one or two boards with quality issues that can easily be reworked, do we need to implement the full procedure?

Help and thanks in advance.

When I worked on an electronics assembly shop floor, we used a simple defect matrix and, at the end of the shift, turned that in to report non-conformances. Any boards etc which had "odd" faults or couldn't be reworked/touched up were set aside and a tally made, then a NCMR completed.
 

rickpaul01

Involved in HankyPanky
What I did was to allow the operator to “fix” any mistakes that he made and found himself. If it makes it to QC, an NCMR is created. I wrote this into the QMS and it is audit-proof.
Don’t you want to track the number of defectives presented for inspection? How would you write a QMS that defines a little problem and a big problem?
 

QLearning

Involved In Discussions
Dear AndyN, thanks for your input. So in your example, how/who determined if the boards should be reworked? At any point in your example, was the "control of nonconforming product" procedure triggered? The single board tagged and go thru a MRB for disposition determination?
 

QLearning

Involved In Discussions
Dear RickPaul01, Thanks for your input. I knew that using the term "big" problem would get me into trouble :-o

I am still struggling with when we need to implement our Control of Nonconforming Product procedure. If one board with bad solder makes it through to QC (not final QC), then you are suggesting that an NCMR needs to be filled out. Would we then need to implement the Control of Nonconforming Product procedure, and "tag, isolate, convene the MRB, and make disposition determination? just so we can send the board to be reworked? Sounds too onerous to be efficient/effective. :-(
 

rickpaul01

Involved in HankyPanky
Dear RickPaul01, Thanks for your input. I knew that using the term "big" problem would get me into trouble :-o

I am still struggling with when we need to implement our Control of Nonconforming Product procedure. If one board with bad solder makes it through to QC (not final QC), then you are suggesting that an NCMR needs to be filled out. Would we then need to implement the Control of Nonconforming Product procedure, and "tag, isolate, convene the MRB, and make disposition determination? just so we can send the board to be reworked? Sounds too onerous to be efficient/effective. :-(

In my case, I wanted it to be a little painful. I have almost zero defects now. There are no solder workmanship defects because the operators are held accountable.
You could base it on the dollar value, but that is still not as clean as my method (i.e. subject to problems from an auditor). Good Luck.
 

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
I think you need to distinguish between keeping track of a statistic, writing a non-conformance report, and triggering your control of non-conforming production requirements. Use a sliding scale. Simple problems, simple solution. You can still hold people accountable without a lot of paperwork and hassle. More complex problems, go with the whole enchilada. We use a dollar value to make the determination. Good luck.
 
T

Tara Monson

Do you perform a "Final QC" of materials? In my experiences, a nonconformance is not written until it fails Final QC. We purify antibodies, so rework is constantly going on throughout our process.

Once it hits "Final QC," if specifications are not met, it is written up. Of course, this is spelled out in our nonconforming product SOP.

Good luck!
 

QLearning

Involved In Discussions
Golfman25, Thanks. I guess that's what I am thinking, but will have to define at what "level" each action will be triggered.
 

QLearning

Involved In Discussions
Tara, thanks for your input. We do have final QC, so maybe that would definitely be a point where we would have to fill out an NCMR, and maybe start the Control of Nonconforming Product procedure.
 
Top Bottom