I am looking for a Material Review Board (MRB) meeting agenda

[james_r]

Does anyone have an example of an agenda form for a non-conformance meeting?
When we hold these meetings, sometimes little comes out of them and I'd like to steer the meeting to a productive conclusion with a clear agenda.

Thanks

-James

 

[sagai]

Re: Non-Conformance Meeting Agenda

Well, I have never come across with such meeting. Actually it does not have a kind of reassuring name though
What is it about?

Cheers!

 

[Bev D]

Re: Non-Conformance Meeting Agenda

What is the intent of the meeting?
What type of nonconformances - audit or product?

if Audit - is this a meeting to review corrective actions and/or progress/status?
If product, is this a meeting to disposition the material? Or is it a meeting to prioritize which Problems to solve?

 

[J Allen]

Re: Non-Conformance Meeting Agenda

I hold weekly C/A meetings that we discuss the NCRs that were written during the last week. I have already reviewed that tags to determine if it is a repeat nonconformance (same defect, same part), a repeat defect (a continuing problem such as drilling holes o/s in all similar parts), and if a repeat, why wasn't corrective action effective.
If C/A has not been supplied, we determine what department was responsible and assign action to the department manager to pursue C/A and report at the following C/A meeting.
We also discuss aging of corrective actions.
Note: this meeting is for manufacturing defects and not C/A associated with internal of external audits.

 

[Ajit Basrur]

Re: Non-Conformance Meeting Agenda

Does anyone have an example of an agenda form for a non-conformance meeting?
When we hold these meetings, sometimes little comes out of them and I'd like to steer the meeting to a productive conclusion with a clear agenda.

Thanks

-James

I think you are refring to Material review Board (MRB) meetings, right ?

Pls refer to one of my earlier thread - Can you explain about "MATERIAL REVIEW BOARD"? that has a link to a detailed procedure.

Also refer this report for more info - http://www.highcountryinc.com/PDFSamples/NCMR.pdf

 

[J Allen]

No. An MRB meeting is to disposition the nonconformance. the C/A meeting assigns responsibility for root cause determination and corrective action for the NCRs that were written.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Does anyone have an example of an agenda form for a non-conformance meeting?
When we hold these meetings, sometimes little comes out of them and I'd like to steer the meeting to a productive conclusion with a clear agenda.

Thanks

-James

Simply, the MRB has to have authority and expertise to make a decision whether the suspect material is conforming or not. The quicker the decision can be made, the quicker a decision about disposition can be made.

I wrote about the MRB a number of times over the past nine years here in the Cove. Most recently, in January, 2013, I wrote:

The general thought for most Material Review Board policies is arriving at a speedy decision whether suspect material (incoming, discovered in process, discovered at final inspection) is, in fact, nonconforming.

If yes, disposition (repair, rework, or scrap) should be as instantaneous thereafter as possible.

If no, then it is put back into the supply stream.

Most times, the MRB may make the decision of conforming/nonconforming in-house. Sometimes, it may need customer input or examination by third party experts (metallurgists, metrologists, chemists, etc.) If outside help/approval is necessary, continual monitoring and expediting is the main task of the MRB.

Some time back, I wrote this:

MRBs need a strong basic framework and, most importantly, a combination of authority and knowledge to make decisions on handling suspected materials. Without that basic framework, imposing Lean techniques is not value added if the members of the MRB do not have the requisite knowledge to make a decision and the authority to implement it. Too often, I have seen interminable delays in organizations because of the disconnect between an MRB deciding a product [material] was either conforming or nonconforming, but not having the power and authority to move it out of limbo without resorting to a higher authority to review the decision.

I've written about MRBs on a number of occasions here in the Cove and over in the ASQ discussion forums.

I think the MRB function is necessary.
I see it as two subjective choices, the decision left up to each top management:

1. Have a formal subset of individuals within your organization who comprise such a board and handle EVERY suspected material discrepancy,
   or
2. It is just a function overseen by one individual who has the power and authority to include others as he sees fit on an ad hoc basis to consider material questions of varying complexity, but the one individual can handle most issues himself in a routine manner.

The crux of the matter is how consistently and uniformly the organization deals with suppliers and customers when issues of suspected nonconforming material arise.

And, about my own operation

Operation:
Operators were all on MRB (material review board) in addition to Quality Manager, Finance/Purchasing, Marketing. MRB meetings were held in their [the operators'] conference rooms. If customers or suppliers were invited to MRB, they met there, too.

All training (in-house, machine tool suppliers, outside experts, cutting tool suppliers, heat treaters, platers, etc.) could be conducted on-site. Customers were encouraged to come and meet with operators running their jobs.

We had no quality inspectors (we did have quality trainers and guys who acted as "court of last resort" when a question would arise.) Operators did own first article inspections, based on control plan/inspection plan agreed with customer as part of contract review. Another operator would perform a redundant first article inspection with different inspection instruments. Marked sample with BOTH inspection reports was sent to customer for confirmation before production began.

In-process inspection, SPC, etc. was performed by operator in real time. If nonconformance was discovered, production would halt - all operators would collaborate on finding and curing cause, only calling in outside help if solution eluded them. Inspection records, charts, etc. went right to computer where they were available in real time to in-house folk and customers.

Operators had autonomy to bring in experts from our suppliers of material, capital equipment, and expendable tooling to stay up to date on industry innovation. Sometimes, we shut the whole shop down and chartered a bus to take us to the International Machine Tool Show to spend the day.

If an operator wanted to see a customer's operation and how his product was used, we made it happen. Similarly for a supplier's operation.

In my own practice, "suspects" were referred to a Material Review Board. The MRB had power and authority to make unilateral decision on suspects detected in-house. If a suspect arose at a customer, MRB worked jointly with customer to determine true status and devise a remedy acceptable to all parties. Often, a customer would be called in to affirm a "use as is" determination, regardless of where the suspicion arose.

From 1980 on, my MRB (Material Review Board) was always cross-functional, so it had the experience, knowledge, and power to make decisions on the spot (high efficiency - no delays in making decisions about N/C on incoming or outgoing material.)

I did essentially the same thing with the groups which made decisions about Contract Review and plans for new capital expenditures.

It just seemed like good sense to me. I'd be willing to bet lots of other executives independently came to the same conclusion as I.
The point we need to keep in mind is:
For a number of reasons - operator variation, measuring instrument variation, personal interpretation or estimate of an instrument reading, etc. - folks inspecting the same part may come to different conclusions regarding conformance to specifications. It is good company practice to have a process in place to routinely resolve the issue when such instances arise. In my contract machining business, such instances arose frequently enough that we codified the resolution under our Material Review Board, regardless of whether the issue arose in-house or not. This is definitely NOT a matter for discipline or punishment, but for simple, methodical resolution, with NO FINGER POINTING!

​

ADDED IN EDIT: the simplest agenda follows these steps:

1. do we have the expertise here on the MRB to decide if material is conforming or not?
2. do we need outside help?
3. if we need outsiders, do we have authority to get and pay (if necessary) such experts?
4. does our customer have to be involved in the decision?
5. once we decide whether material is conforming, do we have the power and authority to ship it/rework it/scrap it?

 

[somashekar]

Simply, the MRB has to have authority and expertise to make a decision whether the suspect material is conforming or not. The quicker the decision can be made, the quicker a decision about disposition can be made.

The expertise can be drawn from within the process. The authority to decide becomes the key.
For each of the material, the agenda >>>
1. Material reworkable ?
2. In house ? at Supplier ?
3. Costs ? on a/c of company of supplier ?
4. Decision to rework / by date / disposition

5. Material is a scrap ?
6. Costs on company a/c or supplier ?
7. Send to supplier or scrap agency / by date / disposition

 

[james_r]

Thanks all for the feedback ( wasn't expecting quite so much!)

as a software house we have specific process for dealing with product non-conformances( software bugs) but in this case the non-conformances are typically things like failure to ad-hear to a process or processes failing to deliver customers expectations.

the meetings are attended by the employee's who are involved in the case, and the purpose is to understand root cause, discuss solutions are preventive actions etc,
but often they can 'descend' into blame assignment and finger pointing.

I want to avoid this happening so the time spent can be productive, and I think an agenda would help.

Has anyone had similar experience ?

 

[Bev D]

the meetings are attended by the employee's who are involved in the case, and the purpose is to understand root cause, discuss solutions are preventive actions etc,
but often they can 'descend' into blame assignment and finger pointing.

I want to avoid this happening so the time spent can be productive, and I think an agenda would help.

Has anyone had similar experience ?

I'm not so sure you need an agenda so much as you need a more effective problem solving process and a facilitator who can move your teams through a disciplined process to cause.