Reference Numbers or Titles for a Nonconformance Report?

Hello folks,

Do most of you use a numerical naming for a Nonconformance Report? Like say for instance it's automatically given a number like a PO#....I am new to Quality Management but I am currently working somewhere where someone is giving names of the Nonconformance reports that include an acroynm of name where non-conformance was found followed by the order number that coinides with the non-conformance. This method worked well for one branch although I still think it is not a very good idea as it takes longer than just an automatic generation of a numerical reference for the NCR. We are now using a webware which generates a numerical reference as it tracks the location and all the other pertentent necessary items in an NCR to successfully track your non-conformances. We are using this persons method for now and I am really thinking its counter-productive and we are going to be using this webware by the middle of the year in several other branches. I am just nail biting and worried about this. Please let me know if this person is out of thier mind or do other companies use this method. Please let me know if it is unheard of and that these are just usually tracked by a reference #. Thank you forum and happy new year!

I'd just use a simple sequential number.

Assigning a code based on where the NC was found risks encouraging a blame culture. And the area where the NC was injected into the process is often more useful to know than where it was found.

Assigning a code based on the order number presupposes that NCs can be related to just one order: how to deal with an NC that affects several or all orders?

And what if later analysis shows that while the NC stands, its originating department or order number turns out to be incorrect?

Better to use a simple number for tracking purposes, and to put fields into either the NC report template or the CA template for possibly interesting information such as

- dept where NC found
- dept where error was injected
- order or orders affected by NC
- root cause
- action taken
- etc

In other words, use the NC number just to track NCs and their relevant CAs and PAs. Information such as department where NC found, orders affected and so forth should be carried in separate chunks of information, to enable analysis, not forced into the NC identifier.

pldey42 said:

I'd just use a simple sequential number.

Assigning a code based on where the NC was found risks encouraging a blame culture. And the area where the NC was injected into the process is often more useful to know than where it was found.

Assigning a code based on the order number presupposes that NCs can be related to just one order: how to deal with an NC that affects several or all orders?

And what if later analysis shows that while the NC stands, its originating department or order number turns out to be incorrect?

Better to use a simple number for tracking purposes, and to put fields into either the NC report template or the CA template for possibly interesting information such as

- dept where NC found
- dept where error was injected
- order or orders affected by NC
- root cause
- action taken
- etc

In other words, use the NC number just to track NCs and their relevant CAs and PAs. Information such as department where NC found, orders affected and so forth should be carried in separate chunks of information, to enable analysis, not forced into the NC identifier.

Click to expand...

Thank you so much for your response. I wish more folks would respond so that I could have more backup for my reasoning. I'm not as articulate as I would like to be but I do understand why the current system that we are using will NOT work, especially if we expand the current method to 23 branches. I am worried that not only will it reflect on our current quality system as unprofessional but we are a ISO certified business, I am worried how we would look to our auditors as well. I'm surprised nothing has been said about the current method. To make matters worse, I'm just a temp and have never worked in quality before. One thing I understand is logic. The young lady that has been using this method for almost five years is a really sweet lady so it will be hard to tell her that this method will not work and I've already kind of tried more or less. I feel bad about bringing this to her attention but its better that we change the current method now than later when all these other problems will arrive. Thank you so much for your input!

I used a sequential numbering system, with the year as a prefix (e.g., 2011-039, 2011-040, 2011-041, etc.). This allowed me to do a quick analysis on the annual numbers.

I also had other "columns" within my Nonconformance Log for items such as:

• Date of Issue
• Date of Closure
• N(onconfomance) / C(orrective action) / P(reventive action) / O(pportunity for improvement)
• Source
• Recipient
• Classficiation
• Sub-Classification
• Days Open

Rachelly said:

Thank you so much for your response. I wish more folks would respond so that I could have more backup for my reasoning. I'm not as articulate as I would like to be but I do understand why the current system that we are using will NOT work, especially if we expand the current method to 23 branches. I am worried that not only will it reflect on our current quality system as unprofessional but we are a ISO certified business, I am worried how we would look to our auditors as well. I'm surprised nothing has been said about the current method. To make matters worse, I'm just a temp and have never worked in quality before. One thing I understand is logic. The young lady that has been using this method for almost five years is a really sweet lady so it will be hard to tell her that this method will not work and I've already kind of tried more or less. I feel bad about bringing this to her attention but its better that we change the current method now than later when all these other problems will arrive. Thank you so much for your input!

Click to expand...

One of the best quality managers I ever met started as a temp. She worked her way through the organization over several years, knew it well and wrote one of the best quality manuals I ever saw - because it was real, and figured out using logic.

Only the best CB auditors would question your current system. They'll likely see it as conformant and therefore not an issue. Your proactive ideas, intuition for what the intent of the standard is, and your humanity regarding your colleague, makes you a natural for quality management I think. Good luck.

Pat

RCBeyette said:

I used a sequential numbering system, with the year as a prefix (e.g., 2011-039, 2011-040, 2011-041, etc.). This allowed me to do a quick analysis on the annual numbers.................

Click to expand...

This is same system all my ISO suppliers use.
It is also the same system I use for the same reason Roxane sites.
Our largest customer use the plant name as a prefix, followed by sequential numbering.

Well, from the responses of the other members, this method makes alot of sense. We use a webware that we will recording the NCR's. Our developer was tailoring it to the method that my co-worker was using and it caused a glitch. We are going to have a meeting in two weeks which I will be presenting how this software works. I will then bring it upon myself to present this information to her and our Supervisor. I am so nervous! Thank you everyone for your answers, keep em coming!