Rework 8.7.1.4

#1
Hello everyone! this is my first post, so here goes.

we have a particular manufacturing process which, at first run, has a lot of 'rejected' products due to a particular problem in the process. to correct this problem, a significant modification to the process/machine needs to be done. however, if the 'rejected' products are tested again in the same machine with the same settings, most of (>98%) these pass without any problems, and would be conforming to customer requirements.

now i know that ideally, the root cause is corrected in the machine, but discounting all of that (root cause solution, costs/time involved to retest etc. ) does this conform with IATF 16949?

Thanks everyone for any help.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Bran

Involved In Discussions
#2
You may want to look more at IATF 8.7.1.3 (control of suspect product) rather than the rework clause. From what you're describing, these parts sound, at best "suspect", even with the passing result from the second test because the equipment is giving inconsistent release results. ISO 8.6 and IATF 8.6.1 (release of products) has some requirements relevant to this issue too.

If I was your customer and I knew about this issue, I would be putting your parts on hold until your inspection process was corrected. Maybe would also consider using a 3rd party inspector if not having the parts would shut my line down.

Some other questions or things to consider:
  • Has the process always run this way, or is the first pass fail something new?
  • Is the first test somehow influencing the part or machine that would make a second test more likely to pass?
  • Are the parts being tested prior to being in a steady state (for example, too hot to pass the test, then after cooling they pass)?
Curious to hear other people's thoughts on this
 
#3
Hello everyone! this is my first post, so here goes.

we have a particular manufacturing process which, at first run, has a lot of 'rejected' products due to a particular problem in the process. to correct this problem, a significant modification to the process/machine needs to be done. however, if the 'rejected' products are tested again in the same machine with the same settings, most of (>98%) these pass without any problems, and would be conforming to customer requirements.

now i know that ideally, the root cause is corrected in the machine, but discounting all of that (root cause solution, costs/time involved to retest etc. ) does this conform with IATF 16949?

Thanks everyone for any help.
This is posted with a title of Rework, so I'm not sure what exactly you're asking here. Per IATF, rework is defined as additional processing to bring rejected product back into spec and must be approved by the customer on a case-by-case basis. If you're asking about re-inspection as "rework", I don't think that would qualify. As a customer, I would be very skeptical of your inspection process if the false positive rate is that high unless you have a very sound technical explanation for it.

I will say that for common "re-work" I've been successful using a general rework work instruction. I used to work in an automotive metal stamping plant, and for common items such as burrs, we allowed our operators to rework on the spot. To make everything audit-defensible, we had a general rework instruction describing our standard for burrs and our standard rework method, and we cited it as a reaction in our control plans. If the customers would have asked at PPAP (none of them ever did), we would allow them to review the document. So at PPAP approval, they were agreeing to this, not as rework, but as our normal process.

Perhaps, WITH CUSTOMER AGREEMENT, you could put re-inspect as a reaction method in your control plan. But you open yourself up to questions about the adequacy of your inspection method.
 
#5
Thank you for the replies so far.
Maybe I didn't explain the problem very well. Let me try again ... the process consists of an assembly of a single o-ring. Sometimes the station assembling the o-ring misses, and the machine considers this as a 'reject'. However, the plugs can easily be passed again through the machine and be conforming to the customer requirements.
It's not the test that is causing these rejects, but the part where the o-ring is being assembled.

Thanks again!
 
#6
You may want to look more at IATF 8.7.1.3 (control of suspect product) rather than the rework clause. From what you're describing, these parts sound, at best "suspect", even with the passing result from the second test because the equipment is giving inconsistent release results. ISO 8.6 and IATF 8.6.1 (release of products) has some requirements relevant to this issue too.

If I was your customer and I knew about this issue, I would be putting your parts on hold until your inspection process was corrected. Maybe would also consider using a 3rd party inspector if not having the parts would shut my line down.

Some other questions or things to consider:
  • Has the process always run this way, or is the first pass fail something new? always like this.
  • Is the first test somehow influencing the part or machine that would make a second test more likely to pass? No. it's not the test that is the problem, but the assembly. there is a station which can miss, and this is causing the 'rejects', without any damage to the product. that's why they can be re passed through the machine for another attempt at assembly and testing.
  • Are the parts being tested prior to being in a steady state (for example, too hot to pass the test, then after cooling they pass)? N/a.
Curious to hear other people's thoughts on this
Hi Bran, see my replies to your post above in blue. Thanks!
 
#7
This is posted with a title of Rework, so I'm not sure what exactly you're asking here. Per IATF, rework is defined as additional processing to bring rejected product back into spec and must be approved by the customer on a case-by-case basis. If you're asking about re-inspection as "rework", I don't think that would qualify. As a customer, I would be very skeptical of your inspection process if the false positive rate is that high unless you have a very sound technical explanation for it. It's not the inspection part that is the problem, but the assembly part. There is a station that sometimes misses the correct assembly of a part, and then the inspection test considers the whole product as a reject. That's why they can easily be re-passed through the assembly / test process as the product would have no damage on it whatsoever.

I will say that for common "re-work" I've been successful using a general rework work instruction. I used to work in an automotive metal stamping plant, and for common items such as burrs, we allowed our operators to rework on the spot. To make everything audit-defensible, we had a general rework instruction describing our standard for burrs and our standard rework method, and we cited it as a reaction in our control plans. If the customers would have asked at PPAP (none of them ever did), we would allow them to review the document. So at PPAP approval, they were agreeing to this, not as rework, but as our normal process.

Perhaps, WITH CUSTOMER AGREEMENT, you could put re-inspect as a reaction method in your control plan. But you open yourself up to questions about the adequacy of your inspection method.
Hi Matt, see my replies to your post above in blue! Thanks!
 

Scanton

Wearer of many hats
#9
I have repeatedly see manufacturing processes that do not function correctly being labelled as too difficult and/or costly to put right, however fixing the problem is always the correct course of action. Throwing time, effort and energy at inventing processes to rectify the failures instead of fixing the problem is just adding cost (probably hidden cost) to an already inefficient process.

I would always challenge the people saying that fixing the broken process is too costly by quantifying the cost of the time and resource that is involved in competently maintaining the processes required for rectifying the failures, i.e. people, monitoring, measurement, storage, identification, traceability etc.

What I would have to put in place to satisfy the requirements of 8.7.1.4 "Control of reworked product" alone would have me pushing hard to get the process working correctly in the first place.

"If you haven't got the time to do it "right first time", when will you have time to fix the rejects?"

Don't let production make their problem, your problem.
 

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Leader
Super Moderator
#10
<groan>
First don’t worry about what section of the standard applies. This is a physics problem not a QMS categorization problem. You are not an auditor who has to cite a section of the standard in writing up an audit finding.
You really have two choices here: continue to run the failed parts back thru the process to properly assemble the O-ring. As long the detection method catches the failures with a high level of accuracy you are OK. The second choice is the better one in the long run: fix the process. The good news is that if the process can do it the second time it has got to be fairly simple to correct the cause (perhaps not easy or cheap) in the short run, but easy.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
C. Tejeda Process validation of rework assembly methods (medical devices) Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 2
B Rework of a medical device EU regulations EU Medical Device Regulations 5
C 21 CFR 820.90 - Documenting rework and reevaluation in DHR 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 8
N FPY requested for an industry that does not have rework IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
R Rework on DHR Other Medical Device Related Standards 7
S Operation of possible rework in control plan FMEA and Control Plans 8
Z AS9100 Control of Nonconforming Outputs - Rework Dispositions AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 12
J Rework or Recall 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 10
T ISO 13485 8.3 - Non-Conforming Materials - on-line rework or part of process? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 11
G Rework, Reprocess, or Correction - A simple blurred letter on the legible etching ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
A AS9102 Delta FAI Require after Rework stock item from stock AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 1
N Generic Rework/Reprocessing Procedure Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 3
L I need an example rework procedure/instruction for injected plastic parts Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 2
M IATF 16949 Cl. 8.7.1.4 - Risk analysis for decision making about rework IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
T Is Sorting a kind of Rework? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
M IATF 16949 Clause 8.3 - Rework Records Requirements IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
G Severity in Process FMEA for Rework Process FMEA and Control Plans 1
M What is the value of documenting in-process rework for easily-detectable issues? Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 4
G Rework requirement in ISO 13485 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
R How to document the Risk Management on Rework activities ? ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 6
S Regulatory Approval(s) for Rework Dispositions Nonconformance and Corrective Action 2
B Definition Sort vs. Rework - Differences and Definitions Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations Listed Alphabetically 9
B Form to use for Rework including Verification of Effectiveness of the Rework Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 2
S How to establish a Sampling Plan from the Rework percentage? AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 6
A Nonconformances and Rework in a Machine Shop Nonconformance and Corrective Action 6
X Help with ISO 13485 Clause 8.3 "Rework" as applicable to Medical Device Servicing ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 39
D Rework Authorization Form example Manufacturing and Related Processes 5
R Medical Device Circuit Board Component Changes - Is this rework or not? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 8
M Rework Devices placed on the market - IEC 60601-1 Requirements 3rd edition IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 7
D Lean Management applied to Rework Zones Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 8
Q Documenting the Review of Adverse Effects from Rework ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
Q ISO 9001 Clause 8.3 Rework Verification - Re-verification to demonstrate conformity ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
B Soldering Training (specific to Rework and Repair of PCBs) - Long Island Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 5
P Requirements for Approval of Rework Work Instructions ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
Q Dispositions In Claims and Complaints - "Use as is, Repair, Rework, etc" ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
Q Use As Is, Repair, Rework - Useful when categorizing? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
Q ISO 9001 Clause 8.3: Scrap, Rework, Repair, Why? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
M Can sorted returns be returned to stock. Do they need a rework label? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
J Definition Servicing circuit boards - Differences between Rework and Repair Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations Listed Alphabetically 9
A Is Rework "Inspecting Quality In"? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 7
B Overhaul vs. Repair vs. Rework - FAA Definitions Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Standards and Requirements 7
G Numbers that will help us understand what the Cost of Rework is Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 7
T Definition Rework vs. Repair in ISO/AS9100 Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations Listed Alphabetically 8
B Define "Rework" Under Medical Device Standards ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 10
P Rework Notification - Is it sufficient to show how we control rework process Manufacturing and Related Processes 1
T Rework Traceability System Manufacturing and Related Processes 8
A Scrap vs. Rework Classification - Scraping the resistor or reworking the PCB board? Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 10
L Quality Objectives Ideas - Currently we have Scrap & rework, OTD, survey results, etc Manufacturing and Related Processes 50
M Identifying Rework in Maintenance or Craftsman Operations Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 12
C How to document rework being completed at Suppliers on Medical Devices? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3

Similar threads

Top Bottom