Does a Nonconforming Material Report always generate a Corrective Action?

[hokieman]

Good Morning Everyone

My question is basically my subject line! Does a Nonconforming Material Report always generate a corrective action? In a manufacturing environment, would a piece scrapped for machine set-up require either?

Thanks!

 

[krishkaar]

Nonconforming Material Report

No. Not in all cases do we take corrective action.

For all non-conformances reported, we ask the following questions:
1. Is the NC big in Magnitude ?
2. Is the NC linked to high risks?
3. Is the NC repeating in occurence?

If the answer is YES to anyone of the above, we go through the Root Cause Analysis and corrective actions.

On the other hand, all customer compalints (returns ) are treated as NC and deserve full corrective action, irrespective of the number involved.

In the case of setting scrap, we don't treat them as 'NC' as we do have norms for setting - No. of pieces allowed for setting.

Any other views, please.

 

[Cari Spears]

In the case of setting scrap, we don't treat them as 'NC' as we do have norms for setting - No. of pieces allowed for setting.

Any other views, please.

I agree. I'd calculate set up scrap as a cost of quality - not a cost of nonquality. If your number of set up pieces exceeds your "norm" - then you might want to investigate.

What we do here is track nonconforming product by the type of defect and their costs. We look for trends and initiate corrective action when we identify a trend or a particularly costly defect.

 

[michelle8075]

Hi there Hookieman,

I work in the manufacturing environment. At this point, we do not issue a CA on everything that we find as scrap. I agree with the other posts, as they are very accurate and how most businesses currently operate.

We have two methods in place. First, we have an Error & Deviation tracking form. In theroy, we have the employees complete this form any tme an error or deviation is found. This system has been in place for a year now, and we have many struggles with it. People don't mind documenting a deviation found, and it is required. However, people do have problems with noting an error that they in particular had made. It turned into many arguements and backstabbing, yadda, yadda, yadda......

Anyway, something like scrap, I don't think that you would want to track unless you are finding a problem with it. If it important to your company, than by all means do it.

Don't write a CA for every scrap that is produced, your job would be so hectic following each one through!

 

[hokieman]

Thanks!

I agree that it would certainly be a headache to account for all scrap. Especially in instance of set-up! I was just wondering about the whole situation. We had an episode this morning where this issue was discussed and determined to do it as you guy's suggested.

 

[jpandullo]

Hi Michelle,
Could you share your Error and Deviation form? I am redesigning our system for a customized data base and trying to simplify what we currently have. Looking for ideas!

Thanks,
Janice

 

[Kevin Mader]

Hookieman,

No. A formal corrective action is not always needed.

Consider this: in your QMS, what other processes consider a Nonconformance Report an input? Perhaps:

o Design/Change Controls
o Monitoring/Complaints

Consider whether these processes have the means to track a nonconformance to resolution. While this may not negate the need for a corrective action to be formally generated, many times continual improvement of the product can be demonstrated through another tracking and resolution process. Also, it may not be necessary to enter into corrective action. As noted by our quality colleagues, a predetermined level of nonconformance may not be breeched thus the need for CA is unnecessary. This would be typical of an incapable process where it is either infeasible or impossible under current technology to resolve. An NMR in this instance might simply provide the internal vehicle to exit these materials from the manufacturing floor. Issuing a CAR here, however, would simply create the issue of “how and the heck to I close this one now.”

Look around at your established processes and see what you can leverage.

Regards,

Kevin

 

[Jen Kirley]

Re: Thanks!

I agree that it would certainly be a headache to account for all scrap. Especially in instance of set-up! I was just wondering about the whole situation. We had an episode this morning where this issue was discussed and determined to do it as you guy's suggested.

I agree that a corrective action is not needed in all cases, but I wonder why you said "Especially in instance of set up." Why would a problem in set up make it a headache to account for all scrap?

One thing that a good CA process does is allow you do understand how many problems occur in a particular step, area, operator, tool, material, etc. If you want to reduce the scrap but don't know how, a quick matrix or check sheet might help. Then you could head for the direction where more errors occur, so long as it's a valuable operation.

 

[AndyN]

Good Morning Everyone

My question is basically my subject line! Does a Nonconforming Material Report always generate a corrective action? In a manufacturing environment, would a piece scrapped for machine set-up require either?

Thanks!

NO!

Thanks for asking!

 

[JohnWilson]

It would be for the organization to define the requirements for nonconforming product to trigger are corrective action.