Is not keeping inspection record an ISO 9001 nonconformity?

[Salman]

We do inspection of die-casting molds when we receive them from outside. But no inspection records are kept.
Is this a nonconformity as per ISO 9001 standard?

Also, do we need to keep record of mold inspection done before it is setup in the die-casting machine?


What I understand reading the standard is that inspection is clearly made a requirement but it is not necessary to keep record. I, however, would like to see the above records kept. But I can't find any clause against which I may raise a nonconformity.

Thanks.

 

[John Broomfield]

Re: Is not keeping inspection record a nonconformity?

Salman,

Do your purchase orders require your suppliers to keep their inspection records? If so, you could say that you are outsourcing this inspection process and the keeping of records to your suppliers. But make sure you have implemented the controls necessary, including supplier selection, to make your outsourcing effective.

This raises a question why inspect the molds again? I take it that you inspect the molds again on receipt to check for shipping damage. Here, your record may be the signed delivery note.

As to verifying molds during set-up I refer you to clause 7.1d. At this stage I would be more concerned to record any nonconformity in the mold so corrective action can be taken on the earlier processes as necessary. How does the set-up person do that?

Finally, you probably periodically inspect the condition of molds to decide on their replacement. That'll probably also be recorded when the mold has to be replaced.

John

 

[Salman]

Thanks for the reply.

"Why inspect the molds again?":
I am looking at a NADCA document, and it gives a checklist of what needs to be ensured in a new mold. For example, ejector pins correct length/location, steel certification, surface treatment certification, Water lines open, etc.

But now that you raised this question, I am also not sure if keeping this record really would be beneficial.

"you probably periodically inspect the condition of molds to decide on their replacement":
No, we are not doing it. I know it's terrible.
They go for new mold only when Quality rejections start going up.

I am going to raise a nonconformity related to Analysis of Data for sure.

 

[somashekar]

We do inspection of die-casting molds when we receive them from outside. But no inspection records are kept.
Is this a nonconformity as per ISO 9001 standard?

Also, do we need to keep record of mold inspection done before it is setup in the die-casting machine?


What I understand reading the standard is that inspection is clearly made a requirement but it is not necessary to keep record. I, however, would like to see the above records kept. But I can't find any clause against which I may raise a nonconformity.

Thanks.

Hi Salman.
I do not know what inspection you do for the die-casting molds, but as long as your die cast parts are OK for you, and you have records of inspection of the parts, which are your products realized, there is no need for you to record your die-casting molds inspection ..... Hence not having these records is not an ISO9001 NC.
If you think you need these records for any purpose, just define them within your QMS and then maintain the records.....
NOTE: You could consider keeping records of inspection of die-casting molds when you receive them from outside, and still keep them out of your records control procedure.

 

[AndyN]

Thanks for the reply.

"Why inspect the molds again?":
I am looking at a NADCA document, and it gives a checklist of what needs to be ensured in a new mold. For example, ejector pins correct length/location, steel certification, surface treatment certification, Water lines open, etc.

But now that you raised this question, I am also not sure if keeping this record really would be beneficial.

"you probably periodically inspect the condition of molds to decide on their replacement":
No, we are not doing it. I know it's terrible.
They go for new mold only when Quality rejections start going up.

I am going to raise a nonconformity related to Analysis of Data for sure.

Isn't it a process control issue? Make it relevant to managements' objectives, to get only good product made. If they make rejects due to poor die inspection/maintenance that's costing them money! I know the scrap can be melted down - I had a zine die-cast supplier who used to say such heresy - but then they spent so much time and energy heating stuff up, the process wasn't very effective on a FPY basis. Plus they had to throw money at the pot analysis (lab costs) to ensure the metallurgy wasn't off from all the scrap being thrown back in...

 

[PaulJSmith]

If you're already doing the inspection, I don't see the point in not recording it. It takes less than a minute to write it down or enter it on a form. I think this is a case of "better to have and not need than to need and not have."

 

[chasf]

8.2.4 Monitoring and measurement of product
Evidence of conformity with acceptance criteria shall be maintained.

I have always understood this to mean there needs to be a record that the product did meet requirements.

Would measuring the casting be sufficient to prove the mold was in specification?

 

[Kronos147]

"Why inspect the molds again?":
I am looking at a NADCA document, and it gives a checklist of what needs to be ensured in a new mold.

"NEEDS" to be ensured

But now that you raised this question, I am also not sure if keeping this record really would be beneficial.

How else do you proved you did what you needed to do?

 

[PaulJSmith]

The only Records required by 8.2.4 are those that "...indicate the person(s) authorizing release of product..."

This standard does not require records of incoming materials or tools inspections. That, of course, doesn't mean you shouldn't be keeping them. If it's beneficial you should do it, regardless of any "requirement."

It's not a non-conformity per the standard, but it may be if your own internal or contractual requirements aren't being met.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

The only Records required by 8.2.4 are those that "...indicate the person(s) authorizing release of product..."

This standard does not require records of incoming materials or tools inspections. That, of course, doesn't mean you shouldn't be keeping them. If it's beneficial you should do it, regardless of any "requirement."

It's not a non-conformity per the standard, but it may be if your own internal or contractual requirements aren't being met.

I never get hung up on the "ISO required records...." If you want to be audited...you have to be able to provide objective evidence that you are meetng the specified requirements. many times, that means records.