Effective nonconforming process for AS9100 8.7

[shanjon67]

I would like some feedback regarding a recently proposed nonconforming procedure at my workplace. The proposed procedure is as follows:

The machinist will label all nonconforming parts with both a red tag and red dykem. The nonconforming parts will be kept at the work cell until that operation is complete, at which time the conforming and nonconforming parts will be sent to the next operation. The parts will be sent on the same cart, possibly with the nonconforming parts being placed on the bottom of the cart. (still a work in progress)

The nonconforming and conforming parts are expected to travel together through all operations until they reach the quality department, at which time they will be dispositioned. Please note that many of the parts will go through multiple operations in house, as well as outside processes such as anodize, heat treat, chem film, etc. Theoretically all parts come through quality before going to an outside process, and it is at this point that they would be dispositioned.

Please note that I am not the one advocating for this process. However I am the QMS Administrator, and my belief is that the proposed process does not meet the AS9100 requirement for control of nonconforming product. This proposal came about as a reaction to a recent issue with part count. There was a discrepancy between the raw material issued to the job and the number of parts produced.

I welcome any and all feedback. Thank you!

 

[Tagin]

I'm not very familiar with AS9100 (vs 9001), but wouldn't 8.7.1b ('handle nonconforming outputs by segregation') be relevant?

Yet, in the proposed process, there is prolonged and deliberate lack of segregation:

• "The nonconforming parts will be kept at the work cell until that operation is complete..."
• "...the conforming and nonconforming parts will be sent to the next operation..."
• "The parts will be sent on the same cart..."
• "The nonconforming and conforming parts are expected to travel together through all operations..."

 

[shanjon67]

Agreed. I do not believe we would pass an audit with this procedure, nor should we! Thank you for your response.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The machinist will label all nonconforming parts with both a red tag and red dykem. The nonconforming parts will be kept at the work cell until that operation is complete, at which time the conforming and nonconforming parts will be sent to the next operation. The parts will be sent on the same cart, possibly with the nonconforming parts being placed on the bottom of the cart. (still a work in progress)

So, the machinist has already dispositioned the part as scrap? From a risk based thinking perspective, having nonconforming and conforming parts commingling is always a BAD thing.

If the part is OBVIOUSLY to be scrapped (why else would a machinist tag/paint it?), it should be noted in the traveller and the accountability of parts should maintained. No need to physically maintain the whole order in the same cart/cell.

Good luck.

 

[shanjon67]

The parts have not been dispositioned by the machinist, they are simply identified as nonconforming. However I agree, conforming and nonconforming parts should not be together.

Thank you for your response!

 

[Cari Spears]

Isn't there somewhere else that nonconforming parts can be kept, and accounted for, until the end of the run? Then final good parts and nonconforming parts can still be tallied at the end?

 

[shanjon67]

Yes there is, the suggestion to keep the conforming and nonconforming part together is really just a knee jerk reaction to the discrepancy in the part count.

Basically I am just looking for validation that the proposed process isn't viable! Thank you for your response.