Containment Actions for NCRs (AS9100 C) that are not Product related

[Big Jim]

Re: Containment Actions for NCRs that are not Product related

The scope requirement is something that is not required for ISO 9001:2008.

This is about AS9100C where the scope of the things you can buy from a supplier IS a requirement.

 

[Stijloor]

Re: Containment actions for NCRs that are not product related

Actually "exceeding" requirements are easily done - and I tell customer / suppliers that it is measurable. For example - if the requirements are written on the Purchase Order or Print - they could easily exceed them. Perfect example - they want their product tomorrow but you given the product today - BINGO - you have exceeded the requirements of the Purchase order or.. They want a surface finish of 64 but you give them a 32 surface finish - BINGO - you have exceeded the requirements.

NOW...what I take issue is when they write down that they meet and EXCEED the customer EXPECTATION.

Very subjective and not able to verify what are the customers expectations are.

In fact, I tell them that the customer expectation is to receive the product yesterday, free of charge and with a US 20.00 bill with each part - then you have begun the process of exceeding expectation ... but wait - the customer will once again change their mind about expectations because it is not written down on the Purchase Order.

Thus - you could exceed requirement if they are written down but you could never exceed expectations.

Let me help you.

From ISO 9000:2005:

3.1.2
requirement

need or expectation that is stated, generally implied or obligatory

Emphasis mine.

Stijloor.

 

[AndyN]

Re: Containment actions for NCRs that are not product related

Actually "exceeding" requirements are easily done - and I tell customer / suppliers that it is measurable. For example - if the requirements are written on the Purchase Order or Print - they could easily exceed them. Perfect example - they want their product tomorrow but you given the product today - BINGO - you have exceeded the requirements of the Purchase order or.. They want a surface finish of 64 but you give them a 32 surface finish - BINGO - you have exceeded the requirements.

NOW...what I take issue is when they write down that they meet and EXCEED the customer EXPECTATION.

Very subjective and not able to verify what are the customers expectations are.

In fact, I tell them that the customer expectation is to receive the product yesterday, free of charge and with a US 20.00 bill with each part - then you have begun the process of exceeding expectation ... but wait - the customer will once again change their mind about expectations because it is not written down on the Purchase Order.

Thus - you could exceed requirement if they are written down but you could never exceed expectations.

Be very careful with such examples! Delivering before time is often as bad as late delivery! Giving the surface finish as you stated, is out of spec - I had the exact issue! Both are not meeting customer needs, not exceeding! I can't agree about exceeding expectations, either! I've experienced just that very thing...

The point about quality policies regarding exceeding customer expectations is very valid.

 

[dsanabria]

Re: Containment actions for NCRs that are not product related

Let me help you.

From ISO 9000:2005:



Emphasis mine.

Stijloor.

This is the latest definition that I was making reference to:
Taken from:
http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/open/tc176SC2public#_4.__Interpretations

EXPECTATION

NOT USED IN 9001:2008

ISO 9004:2009 (Clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and A.2) noun
- belief about (or mental picture of) the future
- wishing with confidence of fulfilment

:truce:

 

[dsanabria]

Re: Containment actions for NCRs that are not product related

Be very careful with such examples! Delivering before time is often as bad as late delivery! Giving the surface finish as you stated, is out of spec - I had the exact issue! Both are not meeting customer needs, not exceeding! I can't agree about exceeding expectations, either! I've experienced just that very thing...

The point about quality policies regarding exceeding customer expectations is very valid.

Agree!

Bad examples - this one could go either way...:truce:

 

[Cari Spears]

Re: Containment actions for NCRs that are not product related

Section 7.4.1 of As9100C states “The organization shall a) maintain a register of its suppliers that includes approval status (e.g., approved, conditional, disapproved) and the scope of the approval (e.g., product type, process family)”. 1)The following Calibration Houses were used without being on the ASL: FARO, Starrett and PIC. 2)The Current ASL QPF7.44 does not include the scope of approvals for many of the suppliers listed. Example; A&A Aerospace, Bodycote, C&H Hydraulics, B/E Aerospace.

Here's my take on this: containment is the immediate correction - whether it's containing and reworking or scrapping product, or correcting a document error, etc. The permananent corrective action is how to prevent the same thing from happening again.

In the above example, I would have given "evaluated and added all calibration houses to the ASL" as the containment action. For corrective action, I would have described what our plan was to keep us from using suppliers that aren't on the ASL from now on.

Here's an example of one of our nonconformances not related to product that we gave containment for:

 

[nacnack]

Re: Containment Actions for NCRs that are not Product related

Containment is not ALWAYS required. AS9101D 4.2.2.5 stipulates:

I've been dying to get in on this type of discussion somewhere on this forum. I am a AS9100C auditor and have the exact same question that I am in disagreement with my registrar about.
I wrote a minor finding against an organization for the supplier survey they were using did was outdated and did not reflect the current standard of ISO 9001:2008, they had ISO 9001:2000 still on the form. I also went a step further and reviewed a large sample of supplier certifications to ISO 9001:2008 and they all were acceptable. That being said, I felt even though their survey was outdated, the records reflected the current status of their suppliers and all that is needed is a simple revision to the survey and a minor was issued. Now does that require an immediate "Stop the Bleeding" type of containment action? I think not, so based on AS9101D "3.1 Action to control and mitigate the impact of a nonconformity and protect the customer's operation (stop the problem from getting worse)" and 4.2.4 a) when the nature of the nonconformity needs immediate containment action". Well what if it doesn't I asked? I did not require them to write containment action on the NCR because I felt it was minor in nature and could be easily addressed though their own document review and approval process and based on additional evidence reviewed for compliance.
My CB has told me, regardless of the nature of the NCR (Major or Minor) I agree with Majors, we (Auditors) must request containment actions on ALL NCR's written and I quote "Correction is required on every NCR per AS9101D, clause 4.2.4 b. We were audited by ANAB - (ANAB Auditors Name) and he strongly advised us to be very careful with NCR's and advised that we make sure the client's provide correction statements along with the Root Cause and Corrective Actions".
I said blocks 19 & 21 in appendix B would effectively cover this minor NCR and no immediate containment is necessary. But if my registrar wants me to ensure containment actions are addressed on all NCR's regardless if the nature of the nonconformity does not require it, then so be it. But I disagree with the approach. Could use some additional insight on when Containment actions are required and when are they not? am I off base here?

 

[somashekar]

Re: Containment Actions for NCRs that are not Product related

A NCR will always have the references of evidence that was seen in the audit process. So is the first action of correction on the mentioned examples amount to containment ?

 

[dsanabria]

Re: Containment Actions for NCRs that are not Product related

I've been dying to get in on this type of discussion somewhere on this forum. I am a AS9100C auditor and have the exact same question that I am in disagreement with my registrar about.
I wrote a minor finding against an organization for the supplier survey they were using did was outdated and did not reflect the current standard of ISO 9001:2008, they had ISO 9001:2000 still on the form.

Really, that would have been an opportunity for improvement for most 3rd party auditor - OFI - "Considered updating all forms to reflect the latest standard". Auditors should be focusing in adding value to the process and should move away from typos, oversights and misspelling.

I've been dying to get in on this type of discussion somewhere on this forum. I am a AS9100C auditor and have the exact same question that I am in disagreement with my registrar about.
I wrote a minor finding against an organization for the supplier survey they were using did was outdated and did not reflect the current standard of ISO 9001:2008, they had ISO 9001:2000 still on the form. I also went a step further and reviewed a large sample of supplier certifications to ISO 9001:2008 and they all were acceptable. That being said, I felt even though their survey was outdated, the records reflected the current status of their suppliers and all that is needed is a simple revision to the survey and a minor was issued. Now does that require an immediate "Stop the Bleeding" type of containment action? I think not, so based on AS9101D "3.1 Action to control and mitigate the impact of a nonconformity and protect the customer's operation (stop the problem from getting worse)" and 4.2.4 a) when the nature of the nonconformity needs immediate containment action". Well what if it doesn't I asked? I did not require them to write containment action on the NCR because I felt it was minor in nature and could be easily addressed though their own document review and approval process and based on additional evidence reviewed for compliance.
My CB has told me, regardless of the nature of the NCR (Major or Minor) I agree with Majors, we (Auditors) must request containment actions on ALL NCR's written and I quote "Correction is required on every NCR per AS9101D, clause 4.2.4 b. We were audited by ANAB - (ANAB Auditors Name) and he strongly advised us to be very careful with NCR's and advised that we make sure the client's provide correction statements along with the Root Cause and Corrective Actions".
I said blocks 19 & 21 in appendix B would effectively cover this minor NCR and no immediate containment is necessary. But if my registrar wants me to ensure containment actions are addressed on all NCR's regardless if the nature of the nonconformity does not require it, then so be it. But I disagree with the approach. Could use some additional insight on when Containment actions are required and when are they not? am I off base here?

Containment for most aerospace auditors and products is focused on products to be made, done, shipped or in storage - not on documents or procedures.

 

[Big Jim]

Re: Containment Actions for NCRs that are not Product related

I've been dying to get in on this type of discussion somewhere on this forum. I am a AS9100C auditor and have the exact same question that I am in disagreement with my registrar about.
I wrote a minor finding against an organization for the supplier survey they were using did was outdated and did not reflect the current standard of ISO 9001:2008, they had ISO 9001:2000 still on the form. I also went a step further and reviewed a large sample of supplier certifications to ISO 9001:2008 and they all were acceptable. That being said, I felt even though their survey was outdated, the records reflected the current status of their suppliers and all that is needed is a simple revision to the survey and a minor was issued. Now does that require an immediate "Stop the Bleeding" type of containment action? I think not, so based on AS9101D "3.1 Action to control and mitigate the impact of a nonconformity and protect the customer's operation (stop the problem from getting worse)" and 4.2.4 a) when the nature of the nonconformity needs immediate containment action". Well what if it doesn't I asked? I did not require them to write containment action on the NCR because I felt it was minor in nature and could be easily addressed though their own document review and approval process and based on additional evidence reviewed for compliance.
My CB has told me, regardless of the nature of the NCR (Major or Minor) I agree with Majors, we (Auditors) must request containment actions on ALL NCR's written and I quote "Correction is required on every NCR per AS9101D, clause 4.2.4 b. We were audited by ANAB - (ANAB Auditors Name) and he strongly advised us to be very careful with NCR's and advised that we make sure the client's provide correction statements along with the Root Cause and Corrective Actions".
I said blocks 19 & 21 in appendix B would effectively cover this minor NCR and no immediate containment is necessary. But if my registrar wants me to ensure containment actions are addressed on all NCR's regardless if the nature of the nonconformity does not require it, then so be it. But I disagree with the approach. Could use some additional insight on when Containment actions are required and when are they not? am I off base here?

I would not have written that as a nonconformance. Mainly because in a training session a few years ago the CB trainer said "I don't want to see any of you writting a nonconformance just because they have 2000 instead of 2008 on some non-advertising documentation". As others have mentioned, I would simply call it to their attention and move on.

This falls into the catagory of it is always difficult to respond to an inappropriate nonconformance, and that is why you feel uncomfortable.

I would talk to your CB and see if they would agree that this should be downgraded to an observation where it belongs without it being considered as "soft grading".