Inspection and Test Status for ISO 9001 - 'OK To Use' sticker?

[Gman2]

The old standard had us running around tagging everything with an initialed OK To Use sticker or something equal at every stage.
What are your thoughts about the new standard?
Under 7.5.3 ID and Traceability it states the org SHALL identify the product status with respect to monitoring and measuring requirements.

Does that mean from the time material arrives it needs to be stickered or tagged OK to use from receiving?
Because currently we are not doing that, and before I dive into this process I want to be sure I don't go overkill. I am all about streamlining all these processes here, so far so good I just want to keep the streamline train running.
Right now we identify on our receiving inspection sheets but those do not follow the material.
How do you handle product test status from recipt to dispatch?
Is it tagged or stickered at ALL stages?

G.

[Rob Nix]

Way too often people tend to equate "identify" with "tag". You do not necessarily have to tag everything. But you DO have to identify the status (in reference to 7.5.3 bullet 2).

In other words, where any product is lying around, anyone should be able to tell what its status is (e.g. whether it has been inspected or not). That might be placing it in different containers, placing it in clearly identified separate areas, stamping it, or perhaps even tagging it. The guiding principle of the requirement is to prevent something 'not inspected' to be used as something 'assumed to be inspected'.

I hope this helps.

[Gman2]

What about pre packaged parts that come in that we only shelf then use when we need it? The boxes are never opened they are just shelved as is. They all have ID tags on them from the manufact but we dont physically inspect them or open the boxes.


G.

[Claes Gefvenberg]

If your procedures say that it's enough to identify the incoming parts and then put them on the shelf as is... all is well.

See 7.4.3 & 7.5.3

/Claes

[Rob Nix]

Two things:

1) As Claes points out, if the procedure states it, you're good - especially if the procedure says that everything put on the shelf is "inspected and acceptable".

2) If you can prove historically that your system works, and that no or few problems have been experienced using your method, you're good. I often fall back on this kind of proof when an auditor questions whether a particular method of control is adequate. I use the risk vs. benefit explanation: you should never create an eloborate system to control a very low risk process, IMHO.

[Cari Spears]

Originally Posted by Gman2

What about pre packaged parts that come in that we only shelf then use when we need it? The boxes are never opened they are just shelved as is. They all have ID tags on them from the manufact but we dont physically inspect them or open the boxes.


G.

We do this frequently as well. For example, we buy the balls for our ballscrews. We keep minimum inventories of thousands of sizes. We do not open every box to inspect, nor do we use any internal labeling or "OK to use" tags. They are stored in cabinets in the assembly room identified with the mfg labels in the original containers. The assembler verifies the ball size with micrometers prior to loading the unit. We've never had any N/C or warranty issues identified as a result of this identification/inspection method. Is this similar to the situation at your place?

[Gman2]

Kind of, but we never even open the boxes in a lot of cases.
We just re-ship it out.

G.

Originally Posted by Gman2

Kind of, but we never even open the boxes in a lot of cases.
We just re-ship it out.

G.

I would think you'd at least have to see the part. If it understood by your Customer that there is minimal risk of getting the incorrect item or that the count may be off, go for it. It sounds like this is the case, as there is no mention of N/C's attributed to this method. Now, that Supplier's Confidence!