I am working on implementing AS6174 at my company. I came across the following clause which has me quite confused:
"3.1.5 - In Process Investigation
The documented processes shall address the detection, verification, and control of any in-process (post acceptance) and in-service suspect counterfeit material."
The reason this has me confused is because it seems to mandating that your processes have provisions in place for detecting counterfeit materials that have already passed inspection. If so, that is an unreasonable requirement. The whole point of inspection is to detect bad product (including counterfeit products). In theory, the inspection process should not allow bad products through. In reality, we know mistakes happen, but it is unreasonable to setup a second inspection just to "detect" counterfeit materials that erroneously passed inspection. Talk about waste. Furthermore, who is to say a mistake wouldn't be made in the second inspection? Should I then have a third?
Given the absurdity of my first interpretation, I am led to believe that this clause does not mean what it appears to say. I think this clause is more about a company's process for the control of nonconforming products. If I am right, then what the writers of the standard are really trying to say is this: any time counterfeit materials are detected after inspection, regardless of how they are detected (e.g., by a worker on the line, a customer notification of escapement, industry alert, etc.), then the suspect counterfeit products need to be controlled and reviewed and any necessary activities for containment and correction must be performed.
If my interpretation is correct then this is just standard control of nonconforming products stuff.
Thoughts?
"3.1.5 - In Process Investigation
The documented processes shall address the detection, verification, and control of any in-process (post acceptance) and in-service suspect counterfeit material."
The reason this has me confused is because it seems to mandating that your processes have provisions in place for detecting counterfeit materials that have already passed inspection. If so, that is an unreasonable requirement. The whole point of inspection is to detect bad product (including counterfeit products). In theory, the inspection process should not allow bad products through. In reality, we know mistakes happen, but it is unreasonable to setup a second inspection just to "detect" counterfeit materials that erroneously passed inspection. Talk about waste. Furthermore, who is to say a mistake wouldn't be made in the second inspection? Should I then have a third?
Given the absurdity of my first interpretation, I am led to believe that this clause does not mean what it appears to say. I think this clause is more about a company's process for the control of nonconforming products. If I am right, then what the writers of the standard are really trying to say is this: any time counterfeit materials are detected after inspection, regardless of how they are detected (e.g., by a worker on the line, a customer notification of escapement, industry alert, etc.), then the suspect counterfeit products need to be controlled and reviewed and any necessary activities for containment and correction must be performed.
If my interpretation is correct then this is just standard control of nonconforming products stuff.
Thoughts?
