IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition Compliance

[Scanton]

Big Jim, you are missing the point of my example, it not a spark plug but a small component of the spark plug, it is not the oil filter but a small component of the oil filter. This is what makes it 99.9999999% certain that the component would not be used. If we were making readily usable and identifiable "product" like a spark plug, or an oil filter, then yes of course we would have to destroy them.

 

[Big Jim]

Big Jim, you are missing the point of my example, it not a spark plug but a small component of the spark plug, it is not the oil filter but a small component of the oil filter. This is what makes it 99.9999999% certain that the component would not be used. If we were making readily usable and identifiable "product" like a spark plug, or an oil filter, then yes of course we would have to destroy them.

As I said, it has become obvious that we need to agree to disagree.

The most important entity to convince is you certification body. If they buy it off you are not likely to get any more flack.

 

[Scanton]

What you are agreeing to disagree with is (by your example) a completely incorrect interpretation of my example. I’m not trying to start an argument here however I am worried that this will mislead others who find themselves in my same situation.

I am not talking about the likelihood of a mechanic trawling e-bay for a spark plug (which I believe would happen many times on a daily basis), I am talking about the likelihood of a mechanic trawling e-bay for a component to rebuild a spark plug (which is a completely different thing entirely and almost certain to never happen). On this basis the decision not to waste part of the limited resource available on preventing something that will almost certainly never happen is a sound and justifiable business decision, and a scenario that I doubt very much the IATF had catered for.

You are however completely correct when you say “The most important entity to convince is you certification body. If they buy it off you are not likely to get any more flack”

 

[Sebastian]

I am sure that efforts to put one of IATF 16949 requirements due to context in "non applicable" status are useless.
I am sure that due to existence of some risks, even some people can't see it, there are established requirements to prevent their occurrence and we have to address them in our system, even we find them pure nonsense.
I am sure that voting and rock-paper-scissors are not one of quality management tools, although are praised by some of users here.

P.S.
On almost every IATF thread I see "disagree" from persons who does not have enough knowledge to argue, but due to wrong understanding of "freedom of speech" are misleading others. Some time ago I behave in the same way. Now I always questionate my knowledge before I post a comment. This is a huge responsibility.

At beginning I was sure that purpose of this forum is sharing knowledge and knowledge can protect itself alone. Now I am not.

 

[Marc]

It is idealistic to believe that people will not disagree from time to time, just as it is idealistic to believe that everyone will always agree.

I know of no discussion forum where people do not express differing opinions. The key is to not take disagreements personally, or to make them personal. It is rare that there is only one answer to a question. When someone takes a response in a discussion personally, in my opinion it only shows a lack of maturity and a closed mind.

Many times discussions in which people disagree are profitable in that the discussions can help each to better understand each other and the precise scenario. Few things are always black and white.

Discussion forums exist because people have different opinions, beliefs and experiences.

 

[Big Jim]

What you are agreeing to disagree with is (by your example) a completely incorrect interpretation of my example. I’m not trying to start an argument here however I am worried that this will mislead others who find themselves in my same situation.

I am not talking about the likelihood of a mechanic trawling e-bay for a spark plug (which I believe would happen many times on a daily basis), I am talking about the likelihood of a mechanic trawling e-bay for a component to rebuild a spark plug (which is a completely different thing entirely and almost certain to never happen). On this basis the decision not to waste part of the limited resource available on preventing something that will almost certainly never happen is a sound and justifiable business decision, and a scenario that I doubt very much the IATF had catered for.

You are however completely correct when you say “The most important entity to convince is you certification body. If they buy it off you are not likely to get any more flack”

What I'm agreeing to disagree about is your understanding that this could be a legit exclusion. Control of nonconforming outputs is serious. I'm doubting that your justification for exclusion will be accepted.

I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes here.

Since this is a new requirement for 16949 the powers that be may face concerns about how to handle this until the dust settles, but I suspect that they will follow what has been learned from this long standing requirement from AS9100.

I wish you well as you pursue this.

You might consider putting as much energy into finding an easy way to make the parts unusable.

 

[howste]

A more likely scenario is that a 3rd shift production supervisor runs out of WIP and decides to raid the scrap bin for parts that "look" good enough to use. We all know that it should never happen, but we also know that unfortunately it does happen.

The auditor is trying to be reasonable, but the situation doesn't conform to IATF 16949 regardless of the auditor's opinion. The auditor's opinion certainly doesn't matter to the customer who gets the bad parts.

 

[Golfman25]

A more likely scenario is that a 3rd shift production supervisor runs out of WIP and decides to raid the scrap bin for parts that "look" good enough to use. We all know that it should never happen, but we also know that unfortunately it does happen.

The auditor is trying to be reasonable, but the situation doesn't conform to IATF 16949 regardless of the auditor's opinion. The auditor's opinion certainly doesn't matter to the customer who gets the bad parts.

But that sounds like an assembly type of operation. If I am sending him the components, he just pulls them out of the box -- and they are all good. I have already scrapped the bad ones at my location.

This clause/requirement is ripe for a risk based analysis and some common sense imo.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

At beginning I was sure that purpose of this forum is sharing knowledge and knowledge can protect itself alone. Now I am not.

The purpose of this forum is to help people. Help come in many different ways: information, opinions, advice, etc...

Anyone here can post questions and answers, but just because everybody has the right to offer their opinions, it does not mean that every opinion should be listened to. We have true experts in their fields and we also have opinionated people who long to share their unsupported opinions. Unfortunately, people seeking assistance here must find ways to discern the good from the bad advice. One must be wise enough to figure that out.

 

[Scanton]

Thank you all for commenting on this thread, you replies are always enlightening. My working life in quality management has been heavily punctuated with knowledgeable people from the quality community, always willing to share what they know like no other working sector I have ever come into contact with, and for that I will always be grateful.

Today however I have learned that on this forum, if you believe someone completely misrepresents what you are saying and then criticises the results, don’t point that out, just let it pass and say nothing, because doing so will ensure you are accused of taking things personally, that you lack maturity and have a closed mind, even if you agree with what is being said about the misinterpretation.

I would also like to say a big thank you to Big Jim for being so articulate and patient with me, I now completely understand where you are coming from and can see that from your viewpoint that what I propose probably looks unnecessarily risky, and therefore unjustifiable. Unfortunately due to confidentiality I cannot fill you in on technical details, however please let me assure you that the chances of one of our nonconforming components finding its way onto a car is infinitesimally small.

We spent around six months looking at every method we could think of to meet this requirement however due to the small size of the components and the hardness of some of the materials everything we came up with was either way too resource hungry or came with health and safety concerns that couldn’t be justified. We also have the problem of material segregation and not being able to contaminate one waste material stream with another, so whatever we did we would have had to have done multiple times.

Just for your information, this justification has already been successfully made during our transition audit.

The next bit is definitely not aimed at Big Jim: Petty insults are definitely not my thing, I don’t use them and can’t see any real justification for them here. I was just trying to be understood, when I believed I wasn’t. That’s it, plain and simple. If you want to question my integrity, maturity, experience and/or closed mind then there are plenty of other forums where that is common place, this should not be one of them.