Nonconformance vs. Nonconformity - I cannot find major and minor, either!

[Marc]

From the ListServe:

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

From: Nancy Jennejohn <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 22:51:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Findings vs. Observations - Part II/Holtz/Arter

From: Dennis Arter <[email protected]>

John Holtz recently wrote:
> I'm not absolutely sure it clears up the problem - everyone seems
> to want the flexibility of hedging on a nonconformity -- but it
> clarifies why the water is muddy. [Is that clear?] This same
> discussion can be extended to cover "major" and "minor"

When speaking of bad conclusions, there are basically two terms now being used: Finding and Nonconformity. A finding may apply in both compliance and management (performance) audits. [See my June 2000 Quality Progress article for more detailed discussion on these two forms of the audit.] A nonconformity may only apply to compliance audits.

Until the recent 9K2K revisions, "nonconformity" was really a made-up term. But like most, it has its foundation in history.

Third party QMS or EMS registration is an extension of conformity assessment, which has been around for many decades. Conformity assessment was designed for the international shipment of products. When a shipload of grain arrived in Tokyo, the Japanese customers wanted assurance that it was good stuff before they unloaded the ship. So they would hire an independent inspector to sample the grain. Eventually, these inspectors were approved by the government or the shipping companies. Then governments accepted other government-approved inspectors. Conformity assessment. There's a whole committee in ISO, called CASCO, dealing with these matters.

Well, if you're going to assess the conformance of something or someone and it isn't conforming, then you are going to call the results a "nonconformity." Back when only products were being assessed, the term was just fine. It was go or no-go, conforming or nonconforming. But when we started to apply the concept to management systems, it became considerably harder.

We were looking at so much more than just products. Business and egos and reputations were on the line. Should you reject a company for an itty-bitty mistake?

So, the various registrars started classifying these nonconformities. Most settled on "major" and "minor." A major nonconformity meant you were really screwed up. No certificate. A minor nonconformity was like a risk release. "We will give you the certificate on risk, but you gotta fix the problems before we come back." To this day, there is no universal agreement on these terms. Different registrars use them differently. That's fine. We need choices when it comes to conformity assessment providers.

Dennis

 

[Marc]

Also see https://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum13/HTML/000039.html and https://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000175.html for some other related thoughts.

Edited 18 December 2001

I can't re-lookup and change every old link to posts in the old forums. Most of them *should* still be there. If you want to find the post in the New forums, if the link to the thread in the old forums works (most of them should...), look at the thread (topic) title and what forum it is in. Then back here in the New forums - go to that forum and look for the thread topic title - OR - do a Search for the key words from Title (Note - you can search entire threads or just the 'subject' or 'title' - if you look in the Forums search page you'll see the options.

Call me lazy...

 

[JodiB]

Nonconforming product vs. Nonconformance

I need some help with this, please

Currently our offshore crews send in every broken part or piece of equipment along with a nonconformance report. It doesn't matter if it is a relatively new piece that is under warranty, or if it is near the end of its expected lifespan, or if it was being used inappropriately which is what caused it to fail. These "nonconformances" are logged both offshore and onshore. If the equipment is under warranty, it goes in for repair or replacement. When it is rec'd back, the NCR is closed. If it is not under warranty, the NCR is just noted as "closed" and that's the end of it; we throw it away.

I've never liked the sound of this and now that I'm writing the Control of Nonconforming Product procedure, I'm liking it less. The thing is: I want to reserve the term "nonconformance" to an action or lack of action rather than applying it to a product. In my mind, the fact that the equipment failed is not a nonconformance in of itself. We may discover though, that the required maintenance had not been done (according to our procedure) or that it had not been properly used (as according to our procedure) and those would be the nonconformances. The simple fact of a piece of equipment failing is not the nonconformance.

Even if the part is under warranty, as long as the vendor handles the return of the part as agreed under our warranty, the vendor has not been nonconforming. There may be a nonconformance on our end if we keep ordering parts from this vendor that consistently fail, whether they are responsive to replacing them or not., or a nonconformance on the vendor's side that keeps producing bad stuff (...but that is for them to track and correct based on our returns...).

"Nonconforming product" refers specifically to product (or service), so this seems to be the appropriate place to discuss equipment or part failure that impacts our ability to provide our service as contracted, or bad material identified through incoming inspection or final product testing.

My problem? I'm finding it hard to discuss a nonconforming product without using the term "nonconformity" or "nonconformance" ...as in " the type of nonconformity will be identified and communicated to all affected parties..."

So how do I do this? And am I right about the distinction? Some of the staff members are saying to me "If the part is under warranty to work for 3 years and it fails during that three years, how can you say that it isn't a nonconformance? it failed to meet the requirements" And my reply is that the term "nonconformance should be reserved for the determination that we have not followed our internal procedures, or contractual obligations, or ISO "

Help!

 

[energy]

Defect?

While it's hard to differentiate between the two, I say it was a material defect issue. There is a distinction between the two. I just don't know what it is. I think you will lose the battle on the nonconformance issue because it's too broad. Defective equipment is viewed by the Customer as a nonconformance which covers "everything under the sun that doesn't go right" Don't fight the impossible minor crapolla, concentrate on the bigees. Maybe you don't want to face the fact that your stuff just doesn't measure up to what's promised. It's OK, you didn't design or build it. Keep up the struggle. When I see junk coming back, I blame the customer for abuse. 75% of the time, it is!

 

[Greg Maggard]

I have been in couple of companies that have used two different ISO/QS systems. The first (1) company took the time and money to fix the problems when they occured. (1) put less of a system together, but did act quickly and effectively.
The second Company (2) made this very elaborate ISO/QS system with all of the bells and whistles. (2) called out Non-conformance, observations, opportunities, etc...... The Kicker was that company (2) was not really willing to really fix the problems. The fact was they had not really bought into the ISO/QS Systems program. They just were worried about the how to catagorize problems and did we squeak by in the audit for reg. What can we get by with to attract new biz!! (TROPHY)
So, when you look at problem system ask yourself this question:
"Are you really going to address this issue (Non-conformance,observations, opportunities, etc......)
and fix (develop detailed system) or just passify registar and Company Upper Mgt". MAKE CONSTRUCTIVE WAVES:thedeal:

 

[energy]

That's me!

Originally posted by Greg Maggard
So, when you look at problem system ask yourself this question:
"Are you really going to address this issue (Non-conformance,observations, opportunities, etc......)
and fix (develop detailed system) or just passify registar and Company Upper Mgt. MAKE CONSTRUCTIVE WAVES:thedeal:

Soooooo, what's your point! That's us. I'd like peace in the world, too. But, it's out of my hands. Keep your feet on the ground and your head out of the clouds

 

[Greg Maggard]

I'm a straight shooter man! NO FLUFF

 

[Greg Maggard]

If I want it to look good on paper I ask management, If I want it to be a functional work instruction or system that can be used I ask the people. You know the "Golden Goose" The people that run the stuff mgt usually write about from their desks. ouch a paper cut!!hehehe

 

[Sam]

Lucinda, Been there, done that. A few years ago I worked for a manufacturer of downhole oil tools,i.e., for measuring pressure flow, temp. These operate in an extremely harsh environment and are subject to malfunction if not properly used.
The term "non-compliance " or non-conformity never entered the picture. They were all returned through the returns department for test and inspection.
Based on our findings (I prefer that term) a responsible group was identified, i.e, vendor error, Mfg. error, operator mis-use. With cause and corrective action to follow.
The #1 reason a tool was returned was "warranty failure", Normally test and inspection would prove otherwise.

 

[energy]

RGA?

Lucinda,

Sam's situation is ideal as it puts the "non conformance" on hold until determination has been made as to the reason for failure. Why not use your "Return Goods Authorization" system to replace the Nonconformance Report. We allow returned material to come back before intitating any Corrective Action. Sometimes the customer didn't order correctly, or we ship incorrectly because the data entry person had happy fingers. Either way, WE control how it is returned. Do away with those old forms. Explain to your senior management that creating the nonconformance will happen when it is determined that it is really your company's responsibility. The reluctance to do so may tell you that they have no faith in their equipment to perform to expectations. In that case nonconformance reports are in order!