Authority for Disposition of Nonconforming Product - AS9100

[funkj - 2008]

In Reply to Parent Post by David DeLong

I don't know if I am off track here but:

Why is a Quality Manager making disposition anyway? If product is non-conforming, shouldn't the department producing the nonconforming product make disposition with input from Quality.

Sometimes, there is a morning committee that would deal with nonconforming product but on off shifts, it is the Production Supervisor with input from Quality.

Can you just imagine if there were a Cost of Quality system in this company, the Quality Manager gave a disposition of scrap and the costs were charged to the direct production division. It is like having someone in your bank account.

Production are responsible for making the product to specification while Quality is a service department assisting departments reach their quality objectives. The Quality Manager should not be responsible for making disposition but only contributing input for a decision

In theory I think you are correct, but reality not really.
Production is suppose to make the call on the floor but if there is a "hard" decision then Quality is asked. In this case the Quality folks on the floor make the call, but...

Lets say that Quality finds parts that are "bad" and production disagrees. At this point the Quality Manager has to step in and make the final call. If this is left in the hands of production, the majority of the time they will default to shipping the product. Quality must be the conscience of the facility.

Yes in a true MRB situation Quality can be over ridden by production and engineering, but they stuff must be the conscience.

As the Quality Manager at my facility, (mind you it is small 51 people) I make calls on product daily. If there is a concern on an off shift then the parts are put no hold until the morning. It is not a perfect system and could use lots of improvement but it keeps the bad product in house.

Now yes our cost of quality can be very high. We make plastic products so we can product 10,000 parts over the evening. The quality folks that report to me will make a call but I am the judge if you will between a tie between my quality folks and production.

In the perfect world I would just be a support function but in my previous 11 years of manufacturing experience that is not the case. I know many have worked more years in manufacturing but my experience says that production only cares about numbers and Quality must keep them on the straight and narrow.

[adirondackman]

I agree with the philosophy, but not that it always occurs in practice. In my experience, most of the time these decisions are made at the source by the people responsible, and the dispositions are the right ones. But due to conflicting priorities, interests, opinions... sometimes the QA engineer or manager needs to step in and take a stand. Ultimately, we're the eyes and ears of the customer, and if we don't like what we're seeing and hearing, we have to act in a way that protects the customer... even if it's not the popular decision.

[David DeLong]

In Reply to Parent Post by funkj

In theory I think you are correct, but reality not really.
Production is suppose to make the call on the floor but if there is a "hard" decision then Quality is asked. In this case the Quality folks on the floor make the call, but...

Lets say that Quality finds parts that are "bad" and production disagrees. At this point the Quality Manager has to step in and make the final call. If this is left in the hands of production, the majority of the time they will default to shipping the product. Quality must be the conscience of the facility.

Yes in a true MRB situation Quality can be over ridden by production and engineering, but they stuff must be the conscience.

In the perfect world I would just be a support function but in my previous 11 years of manufacturing experience that is not the case. I know many have worked more years in manufacturing but my experience says that production only cares about numbers and Quality must keep them on the straight and narrow.

You are quoting a 30 year old system that I used in 1975 when I first become a Quality Manager. This is a total confrontational system where production would try anything to get the product by Quality. If they were successful and then the Customer rejected it, Quality would be blamed. We didn't even have a good corrective action system at that time just inspection and more inspection. It doesn't work!!

I moved into the automotive supplier field and then changed their existing confrontational system with the blessing of the top person in the company. Each department now took responsibility for their quality and over their costs for nonconforming product. What a difference. All Customer rejections were reflected back to the department that produced it. Quality became a supporting service department rather than the "Cop". Costs did drop and quality did improve. Production did their own inspection and the Quality group worked on systems, PPAP, Control Plans, FMEAs, audits and some testing. It is difficult but it does work!!

[funkj - 2008]

In Reply to Parent Post by David DeLong

You are quoting a 30 year old system that I used in 1975 when I first become a Quality Manager. This is a total confrontational system where production would try anything to get the product by Quality. If they were successful and then the Customer rejected it, Quality would be blamed. We didn't even have a good corrective action system at that time just inspection and more inspection. It doesn't work!!

I moved into the automotive supplier field and then changed their existing confrontational system with the blessing of the top person in the company. Each department now took responsibility for their quality and over their costs for nonconforming product. What a difference. All Customer rejections were reflected back to the department that produced it. Quality became a supporting service department rather than the "Cop". Costs did drop and quality did improve. Production did their own inspection and the Quality group worked on systems, PPAP, Control Plans, FMEAs, audits and some testing. It is difficult but it does work!!

I agree with you....

Unfortunately in my current position and previous one I did not have the support that you did to get things changed.

In both organizations they would prefer that Quality has the "control" that way there is always a fall guy.....

I only hope I can see a place at your level sometime in my working career.

[Stijloor]

In Reply to Parent Post by funkj

<snip>In both organizations they would prefer that Quality has the "control" that way there is always a fall guy.....

That does not mean that you have to accept the status quo.....

This is an opportunity to challenge the way things are done and make a case for yourself just as David did.

Stijloor.

[David DeLong]

In Reply to Parent Post by funkj

In both organizations they would prefer that Quality has the "control" that way there is always a fall guy.....

funkj:

Between Stiljoor and myself, we have a lot of years in the quality game.

I became a Quality Consultant in 1986 and always developed an integrated quality system as I described previously for many companies but I did have top management approval.

Here is how I would get top management approval.

I would go out for lunch with the General Manager. I got away from the shop and after lunch I discussed changing the system to the integrated system. If I could not get top management approval don't even try changing the system. It will not work.

If the system does not change, you ARE the fall guy and you WILL be terminated sometime on an issue that you had no control. My blood pressure was at stroke level under the confrontation system and I was only 32 years old.

Make sure that opportunity is right and attempt to get approval for an integrated system where you are truly a service sector.

[Randy]

In Reply to Parent Post by David DeLong

funkj:
My blood pressure was at stroke level under the confrontation system and I was only 32 years old.

It's a good thing you never did the work I've done in my career

Anyway..............You guys are getting all twisted around the axle about who is supposed to what and when..................It doesn't matter who does what, what department does what or when things happen.........It doesn't matter!!!

Only Top Management can define what is to be done, how it is to be done and by whom within the MS process. You guys are all worried about job titles and department names when in reality they are meaningless within an MS...Look in your standard and see if you can find Production Department or Quality Manager...........I have and I can't.

Once top management has defined roles and responsibilities the next step is to determine competency needs and develop a process by which they can be achieved and verified.

The process of disposing of NC Product must 1st be defined and the personel performing disposition of NC Product must be able to demonstrate the ability to do so as defined....competence! It doesn't matter how long they've worked for you or Bubba next door. It doesn'tmatter who trained themor how much they've had. All that matters is if they can perform the tasks as required in the manner required........competence!

Use the standard for the solution and quit playing "Who's on 1st?"

[joshua_sx1]

In Reply to Parent Post by adirondackman

There's another recent thread on this, but we're having real heartburn with this one so I think it warrants a new one. The question is in regard not just to who has authority to disposition nonconforming product, per AS9100 8.3, but the "process for approving personnel making these decisions". We've been advised by a consultant that we need to write into our proceedure that any employee (including the Quality Manager) has to work for our organization for 6 months before being able to make dispositions on nonconforming product. I don't know how most companies could live with this. If a Quality Manager (or other key position) is hired based on that person's ability and experience, and meets the qualifications of the position, doesn't that show sufficient competence to do their job (including disposition of nonconforming product) without a 6 month tenure in their position? In my past lives, key managers were hired with the expectation that they would hit the ground running and be able to fulfill all the requirements of their position. A Quality Manger that didn't disposition material for 6 months probably wouldn't last 6 months! Anybody have any thoughts on this?

...well, sorry for this … but with all those “views” coming from various experts having different perspectives…

…I guess, you can give a try to follow your consultant’s advice… afterall, at least you have “someone” to blame when things went wrong…