8.2.4 ... person(s) authorizing release of product - Who could this person be?

[Mark_QM]

AS9100 section 8.2.4 in the fifth paragraph states ... "Records shall indicate the person(s) authorizing release of product ..."

Who could this person be and how should this be documented?

For example, could it be the inspector and documented by the inspection stamp on the traveler (and also by their stamp on the inspection report)?

Thanks,

Mark

 

[Don Palmer]

Welcome to The Cove

AS9100 section 8.2.4 in the fifth paragraph states ... "Records shall indicate the person(s) authorizing release of product ..."

Who could this person be and how should this be documented?

For example, could it be the inspector and documented by the inspection stamp on the traveler (and also by their stamp on the inspection report)?

Thanks,

Mark

Mark, welcome to the Cove.

I think you are on the right track. Keep in mind 8.2.4 further states "Evidence of conformity (the records) with the acceptance criteria shall be maintained." and "Product release and service delivery shall not proceed until all the planned arrangements (see 7.1) have been satisfactorily completed, unless otherwise approved by a relevant authority and, where applicable, by the customer."

Presently, who in your company has relevant authority to "authorize release of product" per "planned arrangements" (see 7.1) Whether you use signature/initial blocks or inspection stamps on a traveler/workorder etc.; the key is that relevant authority authorized the release.

 

[Mark_QM]

Thanks for the info,

Our inspector has stamped the inspection report (evidence of conformity) and the inspection report also has the acceptance criteria on it. All of the operations have been satisfactorily completed, so the inspector signs off on the "ship" block on the traveler. In this case, the inspector is the "relevant authority" ... am I correct? It sounds like I need to clarify this in our procedures.

But now, let's make this a little more complicated....
Suppose the inspector finds that the parts don't meet one of the tolerances on the drawing. For example, the tolerance on a hole is +/- .001" and the hole is oversize by .0002" on 30% of the parts. The president of the company is anxious to ship the parts, so when he comes down to check on things, he says, "Just ship 'em."

I don't know if this happens much in other companies, but it's quite frequent here.

Now, how should I handle the "authorization to ship"? What we've been doing is documenting the nonconformance on the inspection report and writing on the inspection report and traveler, "shipped per <name>."

Thanks for the help,
Mark

 

[Al Rosen]

Thanks for the info,

Our inspector has stamped the inspection report (evidence of conformity) and the inspection report also has the acceptance criteria on it. All of the operations have been satisfactorily completed, so the inspector signs off on the "ship" block on the traveler. In this case, the inspector is the "relevant authority" ... am I correct? It sounds like I need to clarify this in our procedures.

But now, let's make this a little more complicated....
Suppose the inspector finds that the parts don't meet one of the tolerances on the drawing. For example, the tolerance on a hole is +/- .001" and the hole is oversize by .0002" on 30% of the parts. The president of the company is anxious to ship the parts, so when he comes down to check on things, he says, "Just ship 'em."

I don't know if this happens much in other companies, but it's quite frequent here.

Now, how should I handle the "authorization to ship"? What we've been doing is documenting the nonconformance on the inspection report and writing on the inspection report and traveler, "shipped per <name>."

Thanks for the help,
Mark

See the thread The real Policy - Shove it out the door at the highest price we can get

 

[fuzzy]

How brave are you???

Thanks for the info,

Our inspector has stamped the inspection report (evidence of conformity) and the inspection report also has the acceptance criteria on it. All of the operations have been satisfactorily completed, so the inspector signs off on the "ship" block on the traveler. In this case, the inspector is the "relevant authority" ... am I correct? It sounds like I need to clarify this in our procedures.

But now, let's make this a little more complicated....
Suppose the inspector finds that the parts don't meet one of the tolerances on the drawing. For example, the tolerance on a hole is +/- .001" and the hole is oversize by .0002" on 30% of the parts. The president of the company is anxious to ship the parts, so when he comes down to check on things, he says, "Just ship 'em."

I don't know if this happens much in other companies, but it's quite frequent here.

Now, how should I handle the "authorization to ship"? What we've been doing is documenting the nonconformance on the inspection report and writing on the inspection report and traveler, "shipped per <name>."

Thanks for the help,
Mark

Mark QM,

To push this up a notch...what if you were to word that statement, "Shipped non-conforming product without concession at the direction of _________ (The President)." Wouldn't that be a more accurate recounting of what transpired. Would it make a difference?

 

[Wes Bucey]

See the thread The real Policy - Shove it out the door at the highest price we can get

Yep! The issue is that President is overriding the policy he is responsible for. He may have special knowledge that there is an unwritten "fudge factor" in the tolerance from the customer. If yes, he should say so and remove your anxiety. If not, he needs "the conversation" I described in my post in that thread.

 

[Mark_QM]

I like the verbage, "Shipped non-conforming product without concession at the direction of _________ (The President)." We'll start using that.

The president does share with us when the customer has agreed to accept a fudge factor. I always try to determine whether the additional allowance is for "this shipment only" or for future use as well and document it.

We also frequently notify the customer when parts are out of tolerance. Sometimes, they will accept the condition as is (in this case I ask them to send me something in writing) or they may opt to take a partial shipment of the conforming parts and then we can run more parts to complete the order and send to them later.

But, there are still several cases where we are ordered to "just ship it." In those cases I will use the wording provided by Fuzzy above.

The statement by Wes Bucey, "The issue is that President is overriding the policy he is responsible for." doesn't seem like it fits the situation at our company. Our President frequently disregards our quality policies. In his own words, "It's all BS." to him. His motivation for implementing AS9100 is the $$$ he sees in the additional aerospace work he can pick up.

 

[Al Rosen]

Mark QM,

To push this up a notch...what if you were to word that statement, "Shipped non-conforming product without concession at the direction of _________ (The President)." Wouldn't that be a more accurate recounting of what transpired. Would it make a difference?

Yes it would make a difference...one more person on the unemployment line.

 

[Mark_QM]

On the other hand..... Al Rosen could be right...

Mark

 

[Al Rosen]

Mark,
Has the President's unwritten policy ever come back to bite you? Has it ever caused a safety of flight issue?