8.3 ISO 9001:2008 Nonconforming product

[timesup1]

SO i have a question. My company has inspection nonconforming calls V1, V2, V3.
V1 all customers would return product to dealer for repair, V2 a small percentage would return to be fixed and V3 no one cares.
We repair all V1 calls in house, but we ship V2 and V3 calls (very small chips in paint, small run in paint, gaps in flush of unit close). These are all nonconforming product, but some items if we fix we create a much larger problem.
What verbiage is used in procedure to OK this action?

 

[PaulJSmith]

Just to be clear ...
You are saying that your company knowingly ships Non-Conforming product?
And you're asking how to justify this in your procedures?
:mg:

 

[TigerLilie]

Do your customers know they are receiving product with minor imperfections? For example, sometimes I buy clothes with minor imperfections for a discount - but the imperfections are disclosed to me.

 

[Mark Meer]

Just for discussions' sake...

Technically, unless you have some requirement that - either explicitly or implicitly - requires such aesthetic qualities you mention (e.g. "no chips in paint") to be met, products with aesthetic blemishes like this are not "non-conformances" strictly by definition.

In such cases, it would be a business decision whether or not to release these blemished units. This practice, however, would probably be ill-advised from a business standpoint, and kind of flies in the face of the spirit of ISO9001 of customer focus and product improvement.

In practice however, likely you have some established criteria (e.g. in material specs, receiving inspections, acceptance criteria, etc.) that covers these. If this is the case, then you must document each NC, justify a "use-as-is" decision, and authorize the decision.

 

[J0anne]

Hello timesup1.

If your customers don't care for V3, why don't you eliminate that requirement?

A quick fix could be a risk assessment and a relevant concession note shipped to customers with product.

A better way is to approach your customers directly; take their thoughts on board; and work through this together so that your product = customer requirements

 

[Grimaskr]

Echoing the advice of others, the ideal would be to have well-defined "acceptable limits" of these types of imperfections. Preferably, that would be defined with the cooperation of your customer.

For these types of finish characteristics, those acceptable limits would usually address size, location and frequency like:

"No chips in paint larger than x. No paint chips in this area. No more than x number of paint chips in this area."

If this is purely internal, and you don't want to open the can of worms by asking customers what types of blemishes they will accept, you could still do this internally. It simplifies your internal decision-making and makes it consistent throughout your shop.

If you find your customers are sending too much back with these "acceptable limits", you can revise them and tighten them as necessary.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Bringing up a forthcoming concept from ISO 9001:2015, it would be very beneficial to know the context of the organization, including the type of products and the customer base, before we attempt to invoke a "perfect response".

We don't know if the product in question is an aftermarket automotive, medical device, high end consumer item, furniture, custom design, etc.

If I buy (for example) a Snap-On Tool chest, and the back of the cabinet has a scratch, I might not bother with it. On the other hand, if I buy a top of the line stainless steel refrigerator, I will certainly pay much more attention to cosmetic defects.

I don't believe in "documenting pre-established loopholes" in a procedure to pass audits. I do believe, however, in a intelligent assessment of the situation, with customer satisfaction at the forefront, to better develop a product inspection process that adds value to the organization, while delivering and enhancing customer satisfaction.

 

[timesup1]

Great Answers. Thank all of you.