Non-Conformance Report for Concession

[Golfman25]

Good point. It really does vary depending on situation.

Lets say it was decided not to write a Non-Conforming Report for the parts on Concession.
Parts are then stored in stock next to other conforming parts of same part number.
Parts are sent to production and during assembly/inspection it is noticed that these parts are "different" and as such scrutinized where it is determined that the parts are not conforming to print.
The part may then be put on a Non-Conforming Report, unless there is a process to look up that lot# in a Concession database and see if it came under a Concession. Otherwise you would need a method to identify Concession parts from good parts.

Now, if the parts on Concession were put on a Non-Conforming Report during receiving inspection, then that lot# would not be rejected again for same issue in production.

So question here is: should parts on Concession be put on a Non-Conforming Report regardless?

I think it's always good practice to identify parts subject to concession. Normally in our biz there is a quantity or time limit. We would also not have conforming and concession parts at the same time. The conforming parts would have been shipped.

Bottom line, you can do what works best for you.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Lets say it was decided not to write a Non-Conforming Report for the parts on Concession.

It might not be relevant for you, but, should that questionable decision be taken, it would violate not only explicit requirements of ISO 9001, but also, be counterintuitive to the "risk based thinking" thingy....

I find the resistance to record nonconforming products hard to understand, unless, as I said earlier, there is a hidden agenda. The idea of commingling conforming and nonconforming parts, next to each other, is extremely imprudent, in my estimation, and it goes against some of the most basic notions of quality management.

Progressive, forward-thinking organizations are not afraid of identifying mistakes because, this is part of learning.

 

[Al Rosen]

Marc:

8.7.1 The organization shall ensure that outputs that do not conform to their requirements are identified and controlled to prevent their unintended use or delivery.

 

[MarcM]

I think it's always good practice to identify parts subject to concession. Normally in our biz there is a quantity or time limit. We would also not have conforming and concession parts at the same time. The conforming parts would have been shipped.

Bottom line, you can do what works best for you.

Agree on not having conforming and concession parts in house at the same time but to demand and how parts are ordered, I've seen this occur and its a nightmare to sort through.

 

[MarcM]

It might not be relevant for you, but, should that questionable decision be taken, it would violate not only explicit requirements of ISO 9001, but also, be counterintuitive to the "risk based thinking" thingy....

I find the resistance to record nonconforming products hard to understand, unless, as I said earlier, there is a hidden agenda. The idea of commingling conforming and nonconforming parts, next to each other, is extremely imprudent, in my estimation, and it goes against some of the most basic notions of quality management.

Progressive, forward-thinking organizations are not afraid of identifying mistakes because, this is part of learning.

Those are very good points and I completely agree with you on all those.
No hidden agenda, just a thought that was entertained.

 

[MarcM]

Marc:

8.7.1 The organization shall ensure that outputs that do not conform to their requirements are identified and controlled to prevent their unintended use or delivery.

I think that basically sums it up.