I think that maybe a few important points are being missed, and people are talking past each other here. While I agree with Greg that "the organization" has options with regard to how "NC" is defined, the options might be limited. Pesky little things like customer requirements and international standards might play a part in it, and while it's certainly true that if I run the company I can proclaim that henceforth black is white within the boundaries of my own little bailiwick, if the customer (or the standard) calls for white and I supply black, there's going to be a problem, and it's just the sort of problem that registrars should be on the lookout for.
But let's get back to the OP for a moment, because there's an important inconsistency in it that's been overlooked here thus far. Here's what rd007 says that his management wants to do:
In essence this is saying, "We might identify parts as nonconforming at some point before final inspection or the point when they reach the customer, but we're not going to call them that so we don't have to do CA until they reach final inspection (or the customer)." So it's not really a question of how "nonconformance" is defined, because if parts weren't identified as nonconforming in production, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.
As for the rationale--not having to to do CA until the end--what possible difference does it make when CA is done? What is the likelihood that failure to act promptly will result in the ability to identify root causes being compromised?
Then there's this scary bit:
(Ellipsis in the original)
So now we know that not only are there parts which have been recognized as conforming, but they also might not be properly marked or otherwise identified as such (perhaps because the special definition of NC hasn't been applied yet).
So let's summarize: The company is aware that nonconforming parts are being produced, but doesn't want to deal with them on any level until final inspection or until they reach the customer. Management feels that this "strategy" can be justified vis a vis the ISO requirements by simply declaring that parts that have been identified as nonconforming are not actually called nonconforming until it might be too late.
Does any of this actually make sense to anyone?
But let's get back to the OP for a moment, because there's an important inconsistency in it that's been overlooked here thus far. Here's what rd007 says that his management wants to do:
in our quality system we have defined nonconformances as nonconforming parts found at final inspection or the customer, that way we only have to track and provide corrective actions on nonconformances that are discovered at final inspection, not at the work station.
As for the rationale--not having to to do CA until the end--what possible difference does it make when CA is done? What is the likelihood that failure to act promptly will result in the ability to identify root causes being compromised?
Then there's this scary bit:
There are a few boxes or racks of parts that are scrap or rework at the workstations, and those are just thrown out or reworked when the operator or supervisor gets to it. They aren't tagged, except when an auditor is around ...
So now we know that not only are there parts which have been recognized as conforming, but they also might not be properly marked or otherwise identified as such (perhaps because the special definition of NC hasn't been applied yet).
So let's summarize: The company is aware that nonconforming parts are being produced, but doesn't want to deal with them on any level until final inspection or until they reach the customer. Management feels that this "strategy" can be justified vis a vis the ISO requirements by simply declaring that parts that have been identified as nonconforming are not actually called nonconforming until it might be too late.
Does any of this actually make sense to anyone?