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

#1
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
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
D

Don Palmer

#2
Welcome to The Cove

Mark_QM said:
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.:bigwave:

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.
 
#3
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

Holed-up in a Hotel in South Florida
Staff member
Super Moderator
#4
Mark_QM said:
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
 
F

fuzzy

#5
How brave are you???

Mark_QM said:
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?:nope:
 

Wes Bucey

Quite Involved in Discussions
#6
#7
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

Holed-up in a Hotel in South Florida
Staff member
Super Moderator
#8
fuzzy said:
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?:nope:
Yes it would make a difference...one more person on the unemployment line.
 

Al Rosen

Holed-up in a Hotel in South Florida
Staff member
Super Moderator
#10
Mark,
Has the President's unwritten policy ever come back to bite you? Has it ever caused a safety of flight issue?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J Management Representative and PRRC (Person Responsible for Regulatory Compliance) ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
P MDR PRRC (person responsible for regulatory compliance) and personal liability EU Medical Device Regulations 2
M Informational Update from GOV.UK – Regulating medical devices in the event of a no-deal Brexit – UK Responsible Person Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
dgrainger MHRA - Creation of new UK Responsible Person section with added content. Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational EU – MDCG 2019-7 Guidance on Article 15 of the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) and in vitro Diagnostic Device Regulation (IVDR) regarding a “person re Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 6
J Deciding between Professional Use or Lay Person IVD Test - Human fecal stool specimens Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 1
C Person Responsible for Regulatory Compliance - The RA guy/girl Employment Act EU Medical Device Regulations 4
T Head of DOA / External Person EASA and JAA Aviation Standards and Requirements 0
Jane's You may or may not have the same person managing Operations and QA ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 18
Ronen E New Service Offer - MDR's Person Responsible for Regulatory Compliance Paid Consulting, Training and Services 6
J QMS and ISO 9001 for a Single Person Machine Shop ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 24
J Change of contact person Other US Medical Device Regulations 3
T Document Review And Sign Off Second Person Review - FDA Requirements ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
somashekar Internal Audit without a person as auditee Internal Auditing 6
G ISO 13485 Certification for one-person startup ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
E Consultant Person who implemented ALSO the Registrar Auditor? Consultants and Consulting 17
E Can corrective actions be written by and resolved by the same person? Nonconformance and Corrective Action 5
E QP (Qualified Person) for Combined Pharma-Medical Devices Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 1
J Testing data for Special 510k and contact person Other US Medical Device Regulations 4
R Document Control Person - Setting KPIs, Development Plan, and Career Path Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 6
M Corrective Action not being done by the responsible person Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 5
F What are the requirements for authorized person to release FAA repair shop product AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 5
V Annual Performance Appraisal - Person vs. Function/Business Career and Occupation Discussions 5
Y Can we obtain ISO 9001 if there is only 1 person that understands the requirements? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
T Person in charge's role or responsibility in ISMS? ISO 27001 IEC 27001 - Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) 3
J Small Company with an established Secretary/Admin person with "Personal" procedures Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 8
K Equivalent role of QP (Qualified Person) in FDA Regulations Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 8
J Aerospace Parts not Evaluated Properly by Trained Person AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 5
C What to expect in a GE Aerospace Audit of a 100 Person Machine Shop Customer and Company Specific Requirements 5
R Role of Qualified Person (QP) in Contract Manufacturing Pharma Business Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 2
J Reputation of a contact person with FDA while corresponding for 510k ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
J Can a consultant outside of the USA be a contact person on 510k? Other US Medical Device Regulations 13
T Does person responsible for standard have to be the Managment Representative? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
P Can a 2 Person Microbiology Laboratory get ISO 17025 Accreditation ISO 17025 related Discussions 10
A What do you call the person who is assigned a Corrective Action Request? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 13
J One Person Business and ISO 9001:2008 Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 8
G Sending person(s) to Mars, and not bring them back. Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 4
L Management Representative - 2 Person Device Company 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 16
Y What is the first step in implementing AS 9100 for a 4 person shop? AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 3
O Understanding PPAP - Could some clever person give me some guidance? APQP and PPAP 5
Anerol C Where should I start as the person responsible for the calibration laboratory? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 7
RoxaneB My train ride with the world's most interesting person... Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 29
B Most records are not signed by the person who used it ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
B Small company where the Quality Manager and HR manager is the same person ? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
Ajit Basrur Should the Protocol and Report be signed by the same person(s)? Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 7
D Who should be the person to release product to customer ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 34
J Initial Supplier Audits In Person or Not? Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Standards and Requirements 4
J Re-approving documents when the responsible person leaves or changes responsibilities ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 14
S FDA approval (Med Device) - Should we use Accredited Person or proceed on Our Own? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 3
B Document Approval when the responsible person leaves the company ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
Similar threads


















































Top Bottom