Scrap is NCR or not - What regulation

[Mark Meer]

...Anyone who is trying to hide behind needing a regulation doesn't want to be "found out" that the process they are responsible for is costing the organization money...

...The hidden agenda behind the resistance to document scrap is asymptomatic of a major dysfunction. Any organization that resists the basic notion of documenting rejected and dispositioned as scrap product is playing silly games...

To be charitable to the OP and their organisation, it's possible that there's another explanation. It may be that their established process for documenting NCs is robust (see Ninja's post), but when it comes to less significant items the process seems overly onerous.

When I hear "where's the regulation?", I'll often read it as "do we really need to do this?". In this interpretation, the problem is more failing to understanding why it's valuable, and that there may be easier approaches - not necessarily that there are nefarious motives at play.

...Scrap represents piles of money in boxes or on the floor...

This may also not be the case.

Here's an example from personal experience:

We used to have a single form for documenting NCs. It was quite detailed - which was good in most cases. However, every so often during assembly, a screw would fail to screw in properly (e.g. it was bent slightly, or threads were damaged). This would be a component non-conformance, but it seemed totally overkill to use the NC form every time this happened. The screws are less than pennies apiece, and they are always just scrapped.

So, to deal with this, we adopted another system for logging such NCs - Just table with a few columns detailing the when, what, and disposition (pretty much exclusively scrap) - something assembly personnel can fill out in a matter of seconds.

If the OP's situation is like this, then I can understand why management would be wondering "why are we doing this?". To the OP: if this is like your situation, understand that you can develop alternate methods, and the NC data can still be useful in the long-term.

 

[Bev D]

Agree with Mark.
the important regulatory requirement in most standards is the identification of non-conforming material to prevent it's use in a non-conforming state or - during more paranoid days - of use by enemy countries or black market resellers. so called 'toe tags' or 'red bins', etc.

The toe tag would have very little info on it, but usually enough for the engineer or MRB to disposition the material. if the disposition was patently obvious (scrap) then disposing of the material in a red bin that would later be emptied and scrapped was used. If the industry were sufficiently regulated (e.g. Aerospace), there might be requirements for accountability/traceability of the material.

So the OP may very well have a good reason for asking about 'over documentation depending on their industry.

In general I've never found the tracking of NCs to be all that much helpful except for financial accounting and prioritization purposes. this is because the cause - unless there was an obvious 'oops' by operator or equipment - is simply unknown without hands on investigation.

 

[ScottK]

Can I ask a question....

are we talking
A) scrap due to nonconforming product found during or after the process?
or
B) scrap due to set-up, change over, shutdown, leftover material, etc... i.e. expected scrap?

Because I would not write an NC for B.

 

[Ninja]

Can I ask a question....

are we talking
A) scrap due to nonconforming product found during or after the process?
or
B) scrap due to set-up, change over, shutdown, leftover material, etc... i.e. expected scrap?

Because I would not write an NC for B.

Nor for a bent screw...I would just replace it and have no NC to record...the part would never make it that far before it was just fixed.

 

[AndyN]

Thank you all for the helpful replies.

Ken,

I still need to tie it to a regulation as people try to get away if there is no verbatim reference.

Thanks.

Which "people"?

 

[AndyN]

To be charitable to the OP and their organisation, it's possible that there's another explanation. It may be that their established process for documenting NCs is robust (see Ninja's post), but when it comes to less significant items the process seems overly onerous.

When I hear "where's the regulation?", I'll often read it as "do we really need to do this?". In this interpretation, the problem is more failing to understanding why it's valuable, and that there may be easier approaches - not necessarily that there are nefarious motives at play.



This may also not be the case.

Here's an example from personal experience:

We used to have a single form for documenting NCs. It was quite detailed - which was good in most cases. However, every so often during assembly, a screw would fail to screw in properly (e.g. it was bent slightly, or threads were damaged). This would be a component non-conformance, but it seemed totally overkill to use the NC form every time this happened. The screws are less than pennies apiece, and they are always just scrapped.

So, to deal with this, we adopted another system for logging such NCs - Just table with a few columns detailing the when, what, and disposition (pretty much exclusively scrap) - something assembly personnel can fill out in a matter of seconds.

If the OP's situation is like this, then I can understand why management would be wondering "why are we doing this?". To the OP: if this is like your situation, understand that you can develop alternate methods, and the NC data can still be useful in the long-term.

If your process was to complete a NCPR every time you discovered a bent screw, your process needs changing. That's NOT what ISO 9001 has ever required this, but DOES require a record.

 

[Mark Meer]

Nor for a bent screw...I would just replace it and have no NC to record...the part would never make it that far before it was just fixed.

Question: why the exception for a bent screw? In practice, we treat all components that go into final product the same - If they are found to be NC during assembly, it is documented.

...In general I've never found the tracking of NCs to be all that much helpful except for financial accounting and prioritization purposes. this is because the cause - unless there was an obvious 'oops' by operator or equipment - is simply unknown without hands on investigation.

With respect to scrapped items, this definitely tends to be the case in practice. However, while financial impact is certainly the most obvious thing one can derive from such documented NCs, they may also help to indicate:

• Potential issues in receiving inspections - e.g. why are NCs being identified in assembly and not caught in receiving? Perhaps the receiving sampling can be adjusted?
• Potential issues with a particular batch of components - e.g. why are all the NCs within a particular date range?
• Potential issues with personnel/training - e.g. why is it the same person logging all the NCs?

Also, the preponderance of the same NC overtime may eventually lead to a decision to investigate subsequent instances more thoroughly.

 

[Ninja]

Question: why the exception for a bent screw? In practice, we treat all components that go into final product the same - If they are found to be NC during assembly, it is documented.

Well, there is certainly an assumption here on my part...that being WHEN the bent screw was identified.

Assuming as I have that during the fab of the part someone tried to put in a screw, found it bent and unusable, and got a good screw to use instead...the only thing I MIGHT choose to document is that another screw was used...but I might not even bother doing that. When you make stuff, non-perfect situations happen every day, why waste the time and paper?

If that assumption is incorrect, and it was passed down the line to further process steps or final QC and found there I would document it...there is more of a systemic issue.

Formally document every time something doesn't work ideally and was addressed in a minute during the same process? Hardly. It would be like filing paperwork for dropping my screwdriver.

Formally document that a process step allowed NC product into further manufacturing? Certainly.

At the end of the day, it ends up for me at cost/benefit (or risk analysis if you prefer). If I complained to Home Depot every time I pulled a roofing nail out of the box that didn't have a head on it, I'd never get the roof on. If I found the box of roofing nails actually contained screws, I'd complain.

FWIW: I am also assuming that there is a corporate culture that supports the assembly person to complain upwards when they face bent screws every single day...

 

[AndyN]

When you make stuff, non-perfect situations happen every day, why waste the time and paper?

Ouch...

 

[Mark Meer]

...Formally document every time something doesn't work ideally and was addressed in a minute during the same process? Hardly. It would be like filing paperwork for dropping my screwdriver.

Formally document that a process step allowed NC product into further manufacturing? Certainly.

At the end of the day, it ends up for me at cost/benefit (or risk analysis if you prefer)....

I agree with the cost/benefit at the end of the day...
But just for discussion sake, let's take another example:

I have a (moderately) high value plastic component. Again, just like with the screw, sometimes during assembly this part is found to be non-conforming (giant burr, slightly warped and doesn't fit...whatever). As with the screw, these are almost always just scrapped and a new one used - nothing NC goes further up manufacturing.

If this is a regular occurrence, I'm loosing money! As I said in the previous post, a preponderance of such cases might be good grounds for revising our receiving sampling, or supplier controls.

But, were I treat this like the screw and focus purely on "does it allow NC product into further manufacturing?", these would all get scrapped and go undocumented. Other than, as you say, relying on a corporate culture, there would be nothing in place to identify this as an issue (except, perhaps, in the long term some accounting queries I suppose).