What an interesting discussion.
For my £0.02 it really depends on the reason that the concession is required and whether it was in your control or not.
Using the examples from Golfman, if you are using a material because your stock management was the cause, there is clearly a non-conformance in the process and that should be recorded and addressed, however if the issue is outside of your control, i.e. it is due to an urgent client requirement that does not allow for the ordering profile it would not be. Where a machine will not make the part, then there is a clear non-conformance as either the process is not stable enough to produce the part and this should have been identified in the planning phase, or there is a defect with the machine that could indicate a problem with preventive maintenance schedules.
Clearly every case is different based on the merits of the circumstance, but that is why we have continuous improvement and corrective action processes to reduce variation and improve performance.
Good point. It really does vary depending on situation.
Lets say it was decided not to write a Non-Conforming Report for the parts on Concession.
Parts are then stored in stock next to other conforming parts of same part number.
Parts are sent to production and during assembly/inspection it is noticed that these parts are "different" and as such scrutinized where it is determined that the parts are not conforming to print.
The part may then be put on a Non-Conforming Report, unless there is a process to look up that lot# in a Concession database and see if it came under a Concession. Otherwise you would need a method to identify Concession parts from good parts.
Now, if the parts on Concession were put on a Non-Conforming Report during receiving inspection, then that lot# would not be rejected again for same issue in production.
So question here is: should parts on Concession be put on a Non-Conforming Report regardless?
