Differences between an NCR and CAR

[pearson114]

For me, they're practically the same thing. An NCR (non-conformance report) has all the same details, including corrective actions as a CAR (corrective action request).

Does everybody else agree or is there a specific difference that I'm missing?

Thanks

 

[Bev D]

Re: Differences between an NCR vs. CAR

They should be different and ISO allows for this.
Not all Nonconformances (either product or process) require corrective action.
For most product Nonconformances only correction (which includes rework, scrap or even 'use as is') is required. Corrective action may. Be requested if the rate of Nonconformances is high enough or if the Nonconformance is severe enough in effect.

There are several good threads discussing this issue here and some are listed at the bottom of this page...

 

[sowmya]

Re: Differences between an NCR vs. CAR

NCR needs only correction. CAR requires corrective and preventive actions

 

[GStough]

Re: Differences between an NCR vs. CAR

NCR needs only correction. CAR requires corrective and preventive actions

My experience has been that preventive actions are completely different, as they are used to PREVENT issues or nonconformances from occurring in the first place. Once they've occurred, they're no longer 'preventive' actions, but corrective actions.

Preventive actions can be treated as process improvement initiatives, but not as part of the corrective action process.

My FWIW.....

 

[Wes Bucey]

Primary, of course, is quarantine or "sequester" of suspect material until the MRB has confirmed the nonconformance and issued a finding and course of action.

From my point of view:

1. Nonconformance Report (NCR) is one person's [an inspector, customer, etc.] "suspicion" that a product or service is nonconforming.
2. The next step in many organizations is referral to a Material Review Board (MRB) which confirms [or denies] the nonconformance and then sets a course of action (possible courses listed below.)
3. If NCR is affirmed and requires action, one person or a team investigates and reports - the Corrective Action Report (CAR)

Bev D echoes my own thinking when she writes "Not all Nonconformances (either product or process) require corrective action."


The MRB usually has the following courses of action to follow:

1. First, root cause investigation does not even begin until the suspect material (whether a physical product, a software program, or a service rendered) is declared nonconforming.
2. Next, disposition of the suspect material is decided.
3. Then, and only then, can the topic of root cause be taken up IF the material was nonconforming.
4. Finger pointing is not part of a Deming process - effort is aimed at finding a solution, not assigning blame. (Short of outright sabotage, nonconforming material can usually be traced to the system - was the individual given proper tools, workspace, training, evaluation of competence? Was the design at fault? Was the machine inadequate to the task?)
5. sometimes, the root cause is quickly discovered and a solution is very apparent and implemented - the CAR is the report of the investigation, the solution, and the start date of the implementation of action. Some organizations forget to followup with an evaluation (and followup report) that the implementation actually works to reduce or eliminate nonconformance.
6. sometimes, the root cause is discovered, but for economic reasons, correcting the process is not a workable solution. In such cases, MRBs and executives may negotiate and compromise on waivers or permanent changes to requirements (such cases may fall under a concept of Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) or other compromise from 100% perfection)

 

[Jim Wynne]

Primary, of course, is quarantine or "sequester" of suspect material until the MRB has confirmed the nonconformance and issued a finding and course of action.

From my point of view:

1. Nonconformance Report (NCR) is one person's [an inspector, customer, etc.] "suspicion" that a product or service is nonconforming.
2. The next step in many organizations is referral to a Material Review Board (MRB) which confirms [or denies] the nonconformance and then sets a course of action (possible courses listed below.)
3. If NCR is affirmed and requires action, one person or a team investigates and reports - the Corrective Action Report (CAR)

Bev D echoes my own thinking when she writes "Not all Nonconformances (either product or process) require corrective action"

In the vast majority of cases, a nonconformance report documents known nonconformities, not suspicions. The primary responsibility of an MRB is almost always disposition--"We know it's bad, now what do we do with it?". When a nonconformity has been identified, some kind of action will always be necessary. The results of an investigation, if there is one, might be that CA isn't necessary or prudent.

The MRB usually has the following courses of action to follow:

1. First, root cause investigation does not even begin until the suspect material (whether a physical product, a software program, or a service rendered) is declared nonconforming.
2. Next, disposition of the suspect material is decided.
3. Then, and only then, can the topic of root cause be taken up IF the material was nonconforming.
4. Finger pointing is not part of a Deming process - effort is aimed at finding a solution, not assigning blame. (Short of outright sabotage, nonconforming material can usually be traced to the system - was the individual given proper tools, workspace, training, evaluation of competence? Was the design at fault? Was the machine inadequate to the task?)
5. sometimes, the root cause is quickly discovered and a solution is very apparent and implemented - the CAR is the report of the investigation, the solution, and the start date of the implementation of action. Some organizations forget to followup with an evaluation (and followup report) that the implementation actually works to reduce or eliminate nonconformance.
6. sometimes, the root cause is discovered, but for economic reasons, correcting the process is not a workable solution. In such cases, MRBs and executives may negotiate and compromise on waivers or permanent changes to requirements (such cases may fall under a concept of Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) or other compromise from 100% perfection)

Although MRB activity will always be at least slightly different from company to company, in most cases it's a matter of disposition and determining whether or not CA is needed. There are practically no customers these days that will accede to accepting any level of nonconforming material. Just the other day I had a customer ask for an RMA for one $2.00 part, and the source of the defect was untraceable. Customers these days think nothing of creating $500 worth of paperwork and misery for an obvious outlier.
Finally, I think you're (perhaps unwittingly) engaging in finger-pointing when you suggest that an MRB should always confirm the existence of a nonconforming condition. What does this say about the people who are charged with identifying nonconformities? Why would this level of distrust ever be allowed to persist?

 

[pearson114]

Thanks all, some very good points.

With regards to internal auditing, which would you use? Obviously I have a finding and I'm writing this finding up into a ........ ? I would say NCR, as my form has space for:

- my finding
- my evidence for the finding
- containment action
- root cause analysis
- corrective action
- verification of corrective action

Is this an NCR form, or a CAR form? It states the non-conformance and will also be a record of the corrective action.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Thanks all, some very good points.

With regards to internal auditing, which would you use? Obviously I have a finding and I'm writing this finding up into a ........ ? I would say NCR, as my form has space for:

- my finding
- my evidence for the finding
- containment action
- root cause analysis
- corrective action
- verification of corrective action

Is this an NCR form, or a CAR form? It states the non-conformance and will also be a record of the corrective action.

It doesn't matter what the form is called. What's important is the information that's recorded.

 

[Wes Bucey]

In the vast majority of cases, a nonconformance report documents known nonconformities, not suspicions. The primary responsibility of an MRB is almost always disposition--"We know it's bad, now what do we do with it?". When a nonconformity has been identified, some kind of action will always be necessary. The results of an investigation, if there is one, might be that CA isn't necessary or prudent.
Although MRB activity will always be at least slightly different from company to company, in most cases it's a matter of disposition and determining whether or not CA is needed. There are practically no customers these days that will accede to accepting any level of nonconforming material. Just the other day I had a customer ask for an RMA for one $2.00 part, and the source of the defect was untraceable. Customers these days think nothing of creating $500 worth of paperwork and misery for an obvious outlier.
Finally, I think you're (perhaps unwittingly) engaging in finger-pointing when you suggest that an MRB should always confirm the existence of a nonconforming condition. What does this say about the people who are charged with identifying nonconformities? Why would this level of distrust ever be allowed to persist?

These are good points.

The distrust I had in mind is one born of experience. I would venture you have encountered at least one of the following where the part was not really N/C:

1. customer kicks back a part, but incoming inspection had earlier (obsolete) version of inspection criteria
2. customer kicks back part to delay payment process
3. the suspect N/C is really one of judgment call which may be resolved by update of inspection criteria (in-house or at customer)
4. It may be a matter of MSA (Measurement System Analysis) - (Just as processes that produce a product may vary, the process of obtaining measurements and data may have variation and report apparent defects.)

I wrote about the MRB a number of times over the past nine years here in the Cove. Most recently, in January, 2013, I wrote (this post did not address customer-generated N/C suspect or request for CAR, but certainly a CAR or equivalent was generated as part of the record of MRB activity):

The general thought for most Material Review Board policies is arriving at a speedy decision whether suspect material (incoming, discovered in process, discovered at final inspection) is, in fact, nonconforming.

If yes, disposition (repair, rework, or scrap) should be as instantaneous thereafter as possible.

If no, then it is put back into the supply stream.

Most times, the MRB may make the decision of conforming/nonconforming in-house. Sometimes, it may need customer input or examination by third party experts (metallurgists, metrologists, chemists, etc.) If outside help/approval is necessary, continual monitoring and expediting is the main task of the MRB.

Some time back, I wrote this:

MRBs need a strong basic framework and, most importantly, a combination of authority and knowledge to make decisions on handling suspected materials. Without that basic framework, imposing Lean techniques is not value added if the members of the MRB do not have the requisite knowledge to make a decision and the authority to implement it. Too often, I have seen interminable delays in organizations because of the disconnect between an MRB deciding a product [material] was either conforming or nonconforming, but not having the power and authority to move it out of limbo without resorting to a higher authority to review the decision.

I've written about MRBs on a number of occasions here in the Cove and over in the ASQ discussion forums.

I think the MRB function is necessary.
I see it as two subjective choices, the decision left up to each top management:

1. Have a formal subset of individuals within your organization who comprise such a board and handle EVERY suspected material discrepancy,
   or
2. It is just a function overseen by one individual who has the power and authority to include others as he sees fit on an ad hoc basis to consider material questions of varying complexity, but the one individual can handle most issues himself in a routine manner.

The crux of the matter is how consistently and uniformly the organization deals with suppliers and customers when issues of suspected nonconforming material arise.

And, about my own operation

Operation:
Operators were all on MRB (material review board) in addition to Quality Manager, Finance/Purchasing, Marketing. MRB meetings were held in their [the operators'] conference rooms. If customers or suppliers were invited to MRB, they met there, too.

All training (in-house, machine tool suppliers, outside experts, cutting tool suppliers, heat treaters, platers, etc.) could be conducted on-site. Customers were encouraged to come and meet with operators running their jobs.

We had no quality inspectors (we did have quality trainers and guys who acted as "court of last resort" when a question would arise.) Operators did own first article inspections, based on control plan/inspection plan agreed with customer as part of contract review. Another operator would perform a redundant first article inspection with different inspection instruments. Marked sample with BOTH inspection reports was sent to customer for confirmation before production began.

In-process inspection, SPC, etc. was performed by operator in real time. If nonconformance was discovered, production would halt - all operators would collaborate on finding and curing cause, only calling in outside help if solution eluded them. Inspection records, charts, etc. went right to computer where they were available in real time to in-house folk and customers.

Operators had autonomy to bring in experts from our suppliers of material, capital equipment, and expendable tooling to stay up to date on industry innovation. Sometimes, we shut the whole shop down and chartered a bus to take us to the International Machine Tool Show to spend the day.

If an operator wanted to see a customer's operation and how his product was used, we made it happen. Similarly for a supplier's operation.

In my own practice, "suspects" were referred to a Material Review Board. The MRB had power and authority to make unilateral decision on suspects detected in-house. If a suspect arose at a customer, MRB worked jointly with customer to determine true status and devise a remedy acceptable to all parties. Often, a customer would be called in to affirm a "use as is" determination, regardless of where the suspicion arose.

From 1980 on, my MRB (Material Review Board) was always cross-functional, so it had the experience, knowledge, and power to make decisions on the spot (high efficiency - no delays in making decisions about N/C on incoming or outgoing material.)

I did essentially the same thing with the groups which made decisions about Contract Review and plans for new capital expenditures.

It just seemed like good sense to me. I'd be willing to bet lots of other executives independently came to the same conclusion as I.
The point we need to keep in mind is:
For a number of reasons - operator variation, measuring instrument variation, personal interpretation or estimate of an instrument reading, etc. - folks inspecting the same part may come to different conclusions regarding conformance to specifications. It is good company practice to have a process in place to routinely resolve the issue when such instances arise. In my contract machining business, such instances arose frequently enough that we codified the resolution under our Material Review Board, regardless of whether the issue arose in-house or not. This is definitely NOT a matter for discipline or punishment, but for simple, methodical resolution, with NO FINGER POINTING!

​

ADDED IN EDIT: the simplest agenda follows these steps:

1. do we have the expertise here on the MRB to decide if material is conforming or not?
2. do we need outside help?
3. if we need outsiders, do we have authority to get and pay (if necessary) such experts?
4. does our customer have to be involved in the decision?
5. once we decide whether material is conforming, do we have the power and authority to ship it/rework it/scrap it?

 

[insect warfare]

Call it NCR, CAR, CAPA, Continuous Improvement Report, etc. - whatever floats your boat. Just be sure that everyone else understands what its intended purpose is, and move on. Naming stuff appropriately carries its own kind of weight, but don't get hung up too much on names - we can think of multiple names for just about anything if we really sit down and focus hard on it, but it's not worth our time in most cases, and especially when it is drilled down to semantics.

Brian