Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo including content not in the forum - Search results with No ads.

AS9100 - Accountability for Job Travelers

H

HoppyRoo

#1
Hi!

This is something like my 2nd post...

Need a little advice being in the middle of an AS audit.

The auditor noted that on two job travelers on the floor, the quantity of parts didn't match the job / decreased. Ie, Job calls for 35 pieces, OP 1 says 38 pieces made... Or job calls for 2000 pieces, OP 2 says scrap 30 - Qty 1970.

I know why the extra pieces were made, and why they were scrapped. Essentially they were extra pieces made because we will lose 1 or 2 during setup at a later op. On the 30 scrapped, that particular operation is known to have some loss... It's acceptable loss for us.

Either way, he is looking at writing us up as major nonconformance for lack of accountability since the job travelers do not indicate why there is a discrepancy.

Is this fair? Is this what the actual standard is looking for? Our traceability is flawless. Finished product numbers will match up if you follow the whole process. In these cases, the operator simply didn't mark down "why" he scrapped xyz pieces during op whatever.

Should I argue this? And if so... How should I argue this effectively?

Thanks!
Roo
 

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
#2
Roo,

How are the scrapped parts accounted for? Are they put beyond use to avoid release of grey market parts?

You need to show that you have a rock solid way of accounting for all parts.

John
 
H

HoppyRoo

#3
In both of these instances, the parts aren't even close to any kind of finished product. They are simply sorted by type of metal and tossed in clearly marked scrap bins.

Any parts that even remotely look usable would be destroyed prior to scrapping...

So... no... there is no chance these would be "recycled" or make their way onto some other job or anything along those lines...
 

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
#4
In both of these instances, the parts aren't even close to any kind of finished product. They are simply sorted by type of metal and tossed in clearly marked scrap bins.

Any parts that even remotely look usable would be destroyed prior to scrapping...

So... no... there is no chance these would be "recycled" or make their way onto some other job or anything along those lines...
Roo,

Then, it seems, we both need to understand the nature of the claimed nonconformity.

What is the nature when expressed as the opposite of the AS requirement?

John
 
H

HoppyRoo

#5
That is exactly why I am asking on here... :D I'd like to know what the intent of the standard is for the accountability line.

In this case, our production manager told workers to go ahead and make 38 parts when the job was for 35. This was knowing that we would likely lose a minimum of 1 during a later op for setup.

The auditor is saying that we need to hold him "accountable" for not making the correct number of pieces per the job. And documenting all sorts of justification as to why it was done. Then on top of that, potentially write up some kind of deviation and go back and edit the job to "account" for the expected loss of parts during the process.

While I can understand why information like this could be used for continuous improvement / reduce waste, etc... I don't see what we are currently doing as any kind of major violation of the standard.
 

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
#6
Too,

I'm confused.

You are now talking about three types of accountability:

  1. Accountability for travelers
  2. Accountability of parts
  3. Accountability of the Production Manager
The auditor is accountable for explaining the exact nature of the claimed nonconformity.

We cannot do that here without all the evidence.

Please ask the auditor to report the exact nature of the nonconformity he sees.

Then you/we can see if it is true.

John
 
H

HoppyRoo

#7
mmm...

The line he is stating we have nonconformance is:

accountability for all product during production ( eg. parts quantities, splitorders,
nonconforming product )

so... part quantity noted by operators does not exactly match stated quantity at top of job. some parts are scrapped off the job without explicit description as to why. example:

Job ABC - Make 35 parts
OP 10 - Machined 38 parts
OP 20 - Blah Blah 38 parts ( scrap 3 )
OP 30 - Blah Blah 35 parts

So he is asking what happened to those 3 parts. And then, who give authorization to make extra pieces than the job calls for etc... etc...

Does that clarify?
 

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
#8
Roo,

Thanks, our posts crossed.

It seems the applicable requirement 7.5.1g)

...and the "nature" is:

"Failing to account for all product during production".

How does the Production Manager account for all product during production?

John
 

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
#9
mmm...

The line he is stating we have nonconformance is:

accountability for all product during production ( eg. parts quantities, splitorders,
nonconforming product )

so... part quantity noted by operators does not exactly match stated quantity at top of job. some parts are scrapped off the job without explicit description as to why. example:

Job ABC - Make 35 parts
OP 10 - Machined 38 parts
OP 20 - Blah Blah 38 parts ( scrap 3 )
OP 30 - Blah Blah 35 parts

So he is asking what happened to those 3 parts. And then, who give authorization to make extra pieces than the job calls for etc... etc...

Does that clarify?
Roo,

The three scrapped parts. Did you record the nature of their nonconformities? Are you planning to remove the root causes of the most common types of nonconformity? Also see 8.3 and 8.5.2.

Show evidence that the Production Manager is authorized to over-produce. Also see 5.5.1.

I must say that I agree with the auditor that you have a system nonconformity in need of corrective action and 7.5.1g is a pretty good clause.

John
 
H

HoppyRoo

#10
Correct.

Where we have losses, these are known and currently acceptable for the company. The production manager explained that he typically authorizes making a few extra pieces that will be used for setup. This however isn't explicitly documented on the traveler or noted in job reporting.

So... I know why the auditor is writing this up. But I also can't believe we need to document this to death. In most of these instances we are talking about a few dollars worth of scrap metal when all is said and done. If I have to spend 2 hours writing up nonconformance reports every time we toss 2 pieces used for setup, it just gets way out of hand.
 
Top Bottom