Occurance of Non-Conformance, MRB (Material Review Board) and Record keeping

[techrat]

The questions in this post will be based on a manufacturing (precision machining) operation that currently is not working to a specific QMS. Looking more for effectivity in reducing non-conforming work than adherance to any "system"

That said. here is the situation: At this point, all work found to be non-conforming (from any point in the manufacturing process) is imediately forwarded to an MRB area. Unfortunately, the amount of non-conforming product is excessive Manufacturing management has recently begun making changes to how non-conforming work is handled/flows in an effort to improve the efficiency of dealing with non-conforming product.

I (acting as Quality Manager) am all for increasing efficiency. The problem arose where some of the things that were done in the name of efficency, by Manufacturing Manager, eluded some important steps in the material review process. Some of the areas of concern with the new, "more efficient" non-confomring work flow were: not capturing any data on the fact that the non-conformance occurred or the responsible process and dispositioning of product by un-qualified personnel etc.

Now for some questions -

What is the consensus on minimum data collection requirement on the occurance of a non-conformace?

There seems to be a propensity towards "throwing over the wall" of non-conforming material to MRB; Is there any pitfalls to not accepting lots of mixed product? In other words demanding that all non-conforming work sent to MRB be completely sorted at the point of production before moving.

Probably a no-brainer but- In a specific department that is having problems with non-conformances, it has been proposed that a full-time inspector is needed to catch bad work at the source; It is my position that an inpector would be counter-productive to the improvement process, it would be better to focus more engineering effort on the department in order to increase the capability of the processes. Your thoughts?

I am trying, for my own development, to become more active in this forum so expect to see more from me real soon! -Techrat

[Craig H.]

techrat:

Welcome!

I am not an expert in that type of production environment, but to me, if the amount of nonconforming product is "excessive", to the point that it is taxing your system's ability to handle it, there is but one course of action - reduce the amount of nonconforming product.

That said, how does one go about reducing nonconforming product? Why, there has to be some guidance concerning just where the nonconformances happen. How is this done? Measurement.

If I read your scenario correctly, your company may be headed into a deadly spiral where more and more nonconforming product is made (and paid for by the company) while less and less is known about where and why the problems begin. Not a good position to be in.

Maybe you could look at what measurements remain, and use those to uncover the "vital few" sources of problems to attack. Or, come up with a new measurement that captures the culprit processes.

JMHO.

Good luck!!!

Craig H.

[Charmed]

Dear Techrat:

This is just a dmub question:

forwarded to an MRB area.

What is MRB? By the way, your post illustrates exactly what happens when people try to get efficient, without realizing that we must "idiot proof" everything. It is OK to eliminate steps, but "Idiot Proof" it still must be. If not the eliminated steps will eventually lead to the difficulties that you are now facing. Good luck.

Charmed

P. S. This is a general request. I often see posters using acronyms but we cannot assume that every one knows every acronym. May I humbly suggest that they be spelled out in full, at least when used for the first time, in a post. It would really help me at least.

[Al Rosen]

Originally Posted by techrat

The questions in this post will be based on a manufacturing (precision machining) operation that currently is not working to a specific QMS. Looking more for effectivity in reducing non-conforming work than adherance to any "system"

That said. here is the situation: At this point, all work found to be non-conforming (from any point in the manufacturing process) is imediately forwarded to an MRB area. Unfortunately, the amount of non-conforming product is excessive Manufacturing management has recently begun making changes to how non-conforming work is handled/flows in an effort to improve the efficiency of dealing with non-conforming product.

I (acting as Quality Manager) am all for increasing efficiency. The problem arose where some of the things that were done in the name of efficency, by Manufacturing Manager, eluded some important steps in the material review process. Some of the areas of concern with the new, "more efficient" non-confomring work flow were: not capturing any data on the fact that the non-conformance occurred or the responsible process and dispositioning of product by un-qualified personnel etc.

Now for some questions -

What is the consensus on minimum data collection requirement on the occurance of a non-conformace?

There seems to be a propensity towards "throwing over the wall" of non-conforming material to MRB; Is there any pitfalls to not accepting lots of mixed product? In other words demanding that all non-conforming work sent to MRB be completely sorted at the point of production before moving.

Probably a no-brainer but- In a specific department that is having problems with non-conformances, it has been proposed that a full-time inspector is needed to catch bad work at the source; It is my position that an inpector would be counter-productive to the improvement process, it would be better to focus more engineering effort on the department in order to increase the capability of the processes. Your thoughts?

I am trying, for my own development, to become more active in this forum so expect to see more from me real soon! -Techrat

Use the inspector to help gather data, develop pareto charts and cause and effect diagrams. Then determine the root cause. So much for the company not wanting to adhere to a system.

[Jim Howe]

techrat,
I agree with Greg, how do you know unless you measure? Having said that I have experienced first hand the dreaded "MRB (Material Review Board) mindset";ie "send everything to MRB". I might add that we already had 100% inspection and even the inspectors would send to MRB when they very well good have issued a "rework to drawing" work order citing the OOT (out of tolerance) and what needed to be done.

When every thing goes to MRB then MRB becomes a bottle neck! Bear in mind at that point in time we had on board Government inspection who loved MRB and played it to the hilt in terms of corrective action (nothing left MRB without Corrective Action!

However, management did a study and determined it took up to 3 weeks to get from the manufacturing area to MRB and took 26 signatures to close out the NCR (non-conformance report) in order to get the item back out of MRB.

My point is that a full time inspector might be the answer to put out the fire while management determines how to improve the process.

[s-bell]

Originally Posted by techrat

it has been proposed that a full-time inspector is needed to catch bad work at the source;

Does this mean that the non-conforming product is a finished component when it is found? If so who determines if the part is OK / NG and how do they determine this?

Using an inspector, short term to pareto which operations are the cause of the non-conformities is a positive step as you’ll identify which operations give you the most problems, you can then work to address these. Identify the root cause and put in place corrective / preventative actions to stop reoccurrence.

Another option to consider is to give the operators the tools (gauges / measuring equipment) to inspect their own work, by doing this you should locate the issues at source. You’ll soon find out who’s producing the rejects when some operations are waiting for parts. If you’ve got issues with manufacturing this is a potential way to get the problem process highlighted and resolved as no one in production likes to see downtime for any reason.

[techrat]

Couple of items to throw out in light of the responses:
First off, my use of MRB acronym was intended to refer to Material Review Board- I will try to be explicit in the future.

Also, I felt it was important to note that currently, the non-conformances are already being identified at the point of production. Also, it is our policy that the "owner" of the process (usually an operator or set-up person) is responsible for the quality output from their process.

I will further clarify by saying that sending product to MRB becomes an easy out for the process "owner" for bad work because of "out of sight=out of mind". Often times, bad product reaching MRB at this point is mixed with good product at staggering ratios (i.e. 2 bad pcs out of a sample size of 25, in a lot size of 2500).

A position that I am considering taking on this issue is that the process "owner" is responsible for sorting this work before it is passed off. At that point, only the 100% non-conforming product gets into MRB and needs to be dealt with. The bennefit that I am expecting to get from this is an immediate desire, on the part of the process "owner" to fix the process . The side bennefit of course is the reduced number of occurances of product at MRB that is dispositioned to sort as the sorting would already be taken care of.

A few additional pcs. of info:

The process "owners" are all equiped with the tools/gages to identify non-conforming product already.

My original comment regarding the fact that we are not working within the constraints of a QMS was meant to avoid responses like "QS9000 ......requires this or that. The fact is that we do work to a specific quality system of our own design and do desire/intend to become compliant with some of the well known quality systems.

Lastly, the production environment produces precision metal component parts for a large array of different customers with different requirements. The processes see as many as 10 set-up changes per week and the ultimate decision on usability/disposition of non-conforming product is made by a range of "experts" within our organization often including the customer.

Hope some of the added information helps clear up the picture I am trying to paint! -Techrat

[Charmed]

Dear Techrat:

Thanks for clearing up some more things about what is going on. MRB if it stand for Materials Review Board (and not simply Materials Rework Bay!) suddenly frightening to me. This is the highest kind of bureaucracy I can think of. Please, consider a name change for this acronym. Now, a few points.

***********
Also, I felt it was important to note that currently, the non-conformances are already being identified at the point of production. Also, it is our policy that the "owner" of the process (usually an operator or set-up person) is responsible for the quality output from their process.

This is good news. It helps track the problem to the source.

******************

I will further clarify by saying that sending product to MRB becomes an easy out for the process "owner" for bad work because of "out of sight=out of mind". Often times, bad product reaching MRB at this point is mixed with good product at staggering ratios (i.e. 2 bad pcs out of a sample size of 25, in a lot size of 2500).

This is not good news. More later.

*****************

A position that I am considering taking on this issue is that the process "owner" is responsible for sorting this work before it is passed off. At that point, only the 100% non-conforming product gets into MRB and needs to be dealt with. The bennefit that I am expecting to get from this is an immediate desire, on the part of the process "owner" to fix the process . The side bennefit of course is the reduced number of occurances of product at MRB that is dispositioned to sort as the sorting would already be taken care of.

Good idea to get the "owner" to fix the problem and take care of nonconformance. Give me a minute, though.

********************

A few additional pcs. of info:

The process "owners" are all equiped with the tools/gages to identify non-conforming product already.

Why isn't rework, if possible being done, instead of sending to MRB?

*********************

My original comment regarding the fact that we are not working within the constraints of a QMS was meant to avoid responses like "QS9000 ......requires this or that. The fact is that we do work to a specific quality system of our own design and do desire/intend to become compliant with some of the well known quality systems.

Lastly, the production environment produces precision metal component parts for a large array of different customers with different requirements. The processes see as many as 10 set-up changes per week and the ultimate decision on usability/disposition of non-conforming product is made by a range of "experts" within our organization often including the customer.

This illustrates the "complexity" of the process and shows that much work must be done to "fix" these problems once and for all.

*************************

Personally, I think, a major overhaul of how you run this precision metal component production is required. If there are as many as 10 set up changes per week, it is INEVITABLE that mistakes will occur. Absolute IDIOT PROOFING is required. I do not know the skill levels of the operators, but a great deal of cooperation from everyone up and down the line is needed. First, finger pointing will not do. Something tells me this may be going on. If you are sincere about resolving this and making this into a high quality operation, finger pointing must stop.

Call everyone involved for an extended meeting. Get inputs from all levels. You will be surprised how much people know. May be it is the culture that needs to change here. You can be a real catalyst for this change. This is a great opportunity for you to show your leadership skills and your technical skills as well. That's how I would go about it. Everyone must be heard and everyone must work together. Good luck.

Charmed


P. S. In case I did not make it clear, please remember that INSPECTION is considered to be a non-value added step. The better your process becomes, the fewer the inspection steps that would be required. How do you make the process better? It starts from what you are calling step-up changes, as many as 10 per week. It is this step that must be performed meticulously, with due diligence, and without necessarily paying attention to the clock (in other words, doing it RIGHT, not do it QUICK, producitivity of the set up operation is something that we can worry about later). Other things will follow. Do consult everyone up and down the line and get everyone to "buy into" the changes that are no doubt needed.