Weld Repair and Nonconformance reporting

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!
 

Miner

Forum Moderator
Leader
Admin
This was probably written that way to prevent an unmanageable number of NCRs, but you have a valid concern. A Deming approach would be to run a p-chart or c-chart on the process. When in control, no NCR. When it exceeds the UCL, write an NCR. This will also provide the necessary data to compare suppliers, etc.
 
B

bazzle - 2012

We have similar processes.
It is not worth recording for recordings sake.
From time to time we make a study of rework and investigate rework, process methods and improvement strategies.
This may lead to process changes, training or just leave everything as it is as the MD is happy with current costings from that area.
Sometimes you draw a line in the sand, sometimes you have to know when to put your head in the sand :frust:
Returns to that major work area are monitored to see if any related issues need further improvement and are tabled and actioned at regular manufacturing group meetings not on CA's etc.

Bazzle
 
I

irish01

Really appreciate the input so far! Looks like I might have to put this down my priority list just a *bit*!! :)
 
Top Bottom