Nonconforming Product, Equipment, Services and Intellectual Material



Good Afternoon All,

I am curious to know how different organizations handle nonconforming services, intellectual material and equipment. I am trying to define the controls in Handling Nonconforming Product and I began to wonder if there is a better way. Please give me examples of how your organization handles issues of this nature.




You're gonna' have to elaborate - I'm not sure what you're asking ....


Procedurally, we allow three options regarding the handling of NCP. We allow for the destruction of the product, permanent marking, or rendering it inaccessible (compacting it, sending it to the landfill, etc.).

The FAA, and the Aerospace industry in general, is really concerned about rejected material making it’s way back into the product flow so we really have to stay on top of the issue from a training, awareness, and internal audit standpoint.

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
If I understand your question, "Product" can be services, software, hardware, or processed materials including "knowledge". So any/all of these that are NC should be handled under NC product, section 8.3.


I guess if I was your customer, not knowing what product or part you make, I'd be concerned about your designation of the product and how your process prevents its use or shipment. For example, we process steel. If something is found to be non-conforming, it is placed on "hold" electronically, and even if another process WANTED to process it further or even ship it, that would be impossible because the act of putting it on "hold" in the system constrains it - prevents it from being processed through at a machine, or prevents it from being billed out. So it CAN'T go anywhere. Same is true if we then decide that hold material is no good and should be returned to stock for another use or scrapped - the act of RTS'ing it or scrapping it means it literally CAN'T be processed or shipped. I think that's probably the kind of thing your customer is looking for.

I get nervous when I see systems - and yes, I realize theres a LOT of them out there, not everyone is as electronic as some - where material that is non-conforming is just isolated in a special area or someone hangs a hold tag on it. There's really nothing in many of those types of systems to stop someone from walking over to that part or material, picking it up, and making something out of it or shipping it. Your customer is probably looking for a step of somekind you take to make SURE if it's on hold it can't be used or shipped.


I am referring to knowledge, equipment (tooling and machinery), services (repairs and installations) and metrology equipment. I need to know if it would be appropriate to define the control of nonconformances found in these items in Control of Nonconforming Product or if I should define control in another procedure?

I hope this clarifies the question.
Much clearer

Now I get it. I ran a 94 registered system that included non-conforming service under the same umbrella as non-conforming product. The Quality Manual did not differentiate. The QAP Manual used the same procedure for both. Either way you have purchased something that did not meet your specifications. The only real difference is how do you quarantine a defective service? :confused: Just kidding, we would (extremely rarely) get instruments back from the cal service that had not been properly processed so they were not viable for use. Remove from service, evaluate (not just whether it can be made useful but also why this keeps happening), determine corrective action, same as defective material.

I'll use Marc as an example since he's got thick skin. Marc is consulting on your QMS, writes a procedure for control of nonconforming stuff, and the procedure is found to be nonconforming by your auditor during an desk audit. You want to record what it was (procedure), who generated it (Marc), who found it (Joe Assessor from PJR), and what you did to correct it. That way you can start figuring maybe you should be using process maps, Randy instead of Marc, or maybe a new registrar. The point of NCP procedures is to create facts for improvement not stacks nonconforming tags.
Top Bottom