I
irish01
Hi guys,
I have worked for manufacturers where almost everything was documented/tracked via NCR--and that worked great for that org.
I am currently revising our Nonconformance reporting Level 2. We have a statement in our Level 2, "If it is determined that the nonconforming condition will be removed or corrected during subsequent planned manufacturing operations, the item may be accepted and no formal nonconformance report is required."
Our company subs out and manufactures welded components. This clause applies because welds may be run, in the course of NDE they may be found to have indications, the suspect welds can be removed, the welds re-run & retested again, and the 2nd time around you are golden and can keep on trucking. This clause suggests that a NCR would not necessarily have to be initiated since the (bad welds) condition would be corrected during subsequent manufacturing operations (digging them out & welding again--unplanned, but definitely subsequent). If no one reported it, you might never know any weld rework had occured.
I've got 2 issues with this clause;
1. If one is not necesarily required to report these types of activities on a NCR, how would you know that "more weld repair was happening than should be" (assuming you had a baseline--which we do not)? Though we have company WPS and PQRs, there are many parameters that affect welds so the idea of a predictable "baseline" when these are not fully automated processes can get hairy.
2. Our suppliers who do welded metal fab--some suppliers document almost every repair to be on the safe side, some are kind of loose about it. Its hard to make supplier-supplier comparisons. You don't know if a supplier just has terrible operators/processes or if the NCRs they are giving you are expected "business as usual" (once again, there are no baselines available).
My gut feeling is I'd like for this procedure to be a little more specific and not so much of a "judgment call" as to when to issue an NCR for weld repair, per the above clause. I'd like to define it better for the org, if possible.
Do you think this is reasonable? This might be giant can of worms but we get enough supplier weld NCRs to give me pause for thought.
Does anyone in the Cove have experience documenting processes such as non-automated weld repair (or anything else like this) via NCRs?
I hope I've made myself clear! TIA for anything you can offer!
I have worked for manufacturers where almost everything was documented/tracked via NCR--and that worked great for that org.
I am currently revising our Nonconformance reporting Level 2. We have a statement in our Level 2, "If it is determined that the nonconforming condition will be removed or corrected during subsequent planned manufacturing operations, the item may be accepted and no formal nonconformance report is required."
Our company subs out and manufactures welded components. This clause applies because welds may be run, in the course of NDE they may be found to have indications, the suspect welds can be removed, the welds re-run & retested again, and the 2nd time around you are golden and can keep on trucking. This clause suggests that a NCR would not necessarily have to be initiated since the (bad welds) condition would be corrected during subsequent manufacturing operations (digging them out & welding again--unplanned, but definitely subsequent). If no one reported it, you might never know any weld rework had occured.
I've got 2 issues with this clause;
1. If one is not necesarily required to report these types of activities on a NCR, how would you know that "more weld repair was happening than should be" (assuming you had a baseline--which we do not)? Though we have company WPS and PQRs, there are many parameters that affect welds so the idea of a predictable "baseline" when these are not fully automated processes can get hairy.
2. Our suppliers who do welded metal fab--some suppliers document almost every repair to be on the safe side, some are kind of loose about it. Its hard to make supplier-supplier comparisons. You don't know if a supplier just has terrible operators/processes or if the NCRs they are giving you are expected "business as usual" (once again, there are no baselines available).
My gut feeling is I'd like for this procedure to be a little more specific and not so much of a "judgment call" as to when to issue an NCR for weld repair, per the above clause. I'd like to define it better for the org, if possible.
Do you think this is reasonable? This might be giant can of worms but we get enough supplier weld NCRs to give me pause for thought.
Does anyone in the Cove have experience documenting processes such as non-automated weld repair (or anything else like this) via NCRs?
I hope I've made myself clear! TIA for anything you can offer!