Salvaging Components of a Non-Conforming Product

[Ninja]

Our procedures say to cut the fitting off, weld a new fitting on, retest the hose assembly and if it passes the leak test, forward to finishing.

Just a thought...

Your procedures COULD say:

...to cut the fitting off, weld a new fitting on, retest the hose assembly and if it passes the leak test, forward to finishing. Fittings which are cut off in this manner may be refurbished according to process XX-XXX and reused as new.

This would create a positive record granting the freedom that you are already using.

 

[somashekar]

My internal auditor asserts that the part, because it has been welded onto the hose and then cut off, must also be re-verified before it can be used again per Element 8.3 of ISO 9001:2008. My assertion is that 8.3 does not apply because the end connector is not the non-conforming part of the hose assembly. I agree that it is good business practice to re-verify the condition of the end connector prior to reuse, but if it is not, I don't believe that this could be considered a non-conformance during an internal audit.

What is the condition for a new end connector to be acceptable ?
Would the retrieved end connector pass that test, after cleaning ?
Is the metal on the end connector flange after cleaning good for a second weld operation ?
Are there any pressures involved in the flexible hose in actual use ? How safe would the reworked and welded end connector perform in such a case...

usually the fitting has to be cleaned up... e.g. have the weld metal removed before it can be reused. That's why they are typically not rewelded to the original assembly.

Does this clean up remove the parent metal from the connector and perhaps make the collar weak ?
I do not know many things, but have you established controls and procedures on the cleaning of the welded end connector that assures its good for reuse.
Your internal auditor also being a part of your organization (I suppose) wants a process improvement. It may or may not be stated in the standard.
If in your place, I would respect the internal auditor, and care less about what the ISO clause has to say here.

 

[Michael T]

Your internal auditor also being a part of your organization (I suppose) wants a process improvement. It may or may not be stated in the standard.
If in your place, I would respect the internal auditor, and care less about what the ISO clause has to say here.

Thanks... and I agree with process improvement. Which is perfectly fine, but I was looking at this from the perspective of whether it was a non-conformance which would put this through the CA process. If it is a non-conformance then the non-conformance has to be written against either a violation of the standard or a violation of our established procedures.

Cheers!

Michael

 

[somashekar]

Thanks... and I agree with process improvement. Which is perfectly fine, but I was looking at this from the perspective of whether it was a non-conformance which would put this through the CA process. If it is a non-conformance then the non-conformance has to be written against either a violation of the standard or a violation of our established procedures.

Cheers!

Michael

What about the effective implementation and maintenance of the QMS ?
This is also a purpose of Internal audit. See b) of 8.2.2
If addressing the said situation improves the effectiveness, you are good and the internal audit purpose is served. Internal audit is a method for monitoring and measurement of the processes. Address it if it improves the process and QMS effectiveness after due analysis. Please do not apply conditions that CB apply in audits. It is good to have internal audits that throws up opportunities to improve a system. NC count is the last thing to worry about in internal audits.

 

[Michael T]

What about the effective implementation and maintenance of the QMS ?
This is also a purpose of Internal audit. See b) of 8.2.2
If addressing the said situation improves the effectiveness, you are good and the internal audit purpose is served. Internal audit is a method for monitoring and measurement of the processes. Address it if it improves the process and QMS effectiveness after due analysis. Please do not apply conditions that CB apply in audits. It is good to have internal audits that throws up opportunities to improve a system. NC count is the last thing to worry about in internal audits.

Oh absolutely!!!

We write as many Opportunities for Improvement as we do Non-conformances during our Internal Audits. I don't advocate writing NC's just to write an NC... that's not the purpose of the audit... I never want people to view this as a witch hunt. During the audit, we also make recommendations to associates on directions they might want to take when looking at how to improve their processes. My goal is to have the company view internal audits and my department as a resource for process improvement.

Cheers!!!

Michael