Scrap is NCR or not - What regulation

[Ninja]

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!

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

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...

Totally agree.

If I bought a box of screws, and one or two were bent...I'd just move along.
If I bought a truckload of kitchen cabinets and two were broken...different response.

Both of these happen every day, and neither one of them is worth building a new system to address...and you are quite correct, the impact on the business is a primary factor for determining the response.
When the folks noticing the bad screws complain to each other, but not to folks who can do something about it...working on the culture can have tremendous impact. Making them fill out forms much less so.

In either case...if the 'broken thing' was used anyway, and moved down the line to the next step anyway...that has to be addressed almost regardless of screw or cabinet. It is a symptom of a deeper systemic problem.

 

[AndyN]

Totally agree.

If I bought a box of screws, and one or two were bent...I'd just move along.
If I bought a truckload of kitchen cabinets and two were broken...different response.

Don't you have to record it to know you've only got one or two? You're speaking from a position based on knowledge of the size of the issue. For many, in manufacturing, we don't know how often these things happen, without some kind of tally being kept. It's simply too easy to discuss a situation, created to justify a position and give the wrong impression of what the ISO 9001 requirements do for a business. Yes, you must record non-conformities, yes, you might decide not to do anything about it - but you still need the data and analysis to back that up...

 

[Mark Meer]

...When the folks noticing the bad screws complain to each other, but not to folks who can do something about it...working on the culture can have tremendous impact. Making them fill out forms much less so..

While I can totally appreciate the value of culture, it is hardly a reliable control, and it is normally not the assembly personnel making decisions. They may (ideally) notify higher-ups and say "hey, I'm noticing I'm scrapping a lot of plastics". Management will immediately want to know "how many" & "why". If such specifics aren't documented, it's difficult to get management (who are removed from the process) to act.

...In either case...if the 'broken thing' was used anyway, and moved down the line to the next step anyway...that has to be addressed almost regardless of screw or cabinet. It is a symptom of a deeper systemic problem.

I think we can all agree that if NC components are potentially being passed though production there is an issue.

...but what this thread has become is a discussion of whether NCs should/need to be documented even if there is no risk of them impacting final product.

(good discussion BTW )

 

[AndyN]

...but what this thread has become is a discussion of whether NCs should/need to be documented even if there is no risk of them impacting final product.

(good discussion BTW )

Why wouldn't you want to do that? Only documenting them IF they affect final product seems a little ridiculous to me... But I'm all ears...

 

[Mark Meer]

Why wouldn't you want to do that? Only documenting them IF they affect final product seems a little ridiculous to me... But I'm all ears...

I'm not arguing this..like I say, we treat all components the same and just log all identified NCs.

But, were I to argue this, I'd boil it down to a cost-benefit (risk) analysis.

In the case of screws, for example, we might determine the part is so low value that scrapping nearly any amount is not a significant financial issue and, due to other established controls (receiving/supplier) the occurrence rate is likely acceptably low. In this case (low probability, low impact), the cost/burden of implementing/maintaining/analysing a system whereby these NC are documented outweighs the risk posed by the NCs.

 

[Ninja]

I'm not arguing this..like I say, we treat all components the same and just log all identified NCs.

But, were I to argue this, I'd boil it down to a cost-benefit (risk) analysis.

In the case of screws, for example, we might determine the part is so low value that scrapping nearly any amount is not a significant financial issue and, due to other established controls (receiving/supplier) the occurrence rate is likely acceptably low. In this case (low probability, low impact), the cost/burden of implementing/maintaining/analysing a system whereby these NC are documented outweighs the risk posed by the NCs.

I do the same. If it does not impact final product, it is a cost/benefit.

As is normal, differing views (or simply different sides of the same topic) tend to move to escalation in order to make the viewpoints clear...normal forum stuff.
In real life, little is so extreme...or even big enough to be noticed sometimes.

Normal every-day: I'm using 30 screws to put together an assembly, one didn't thread right so I grabbed another out of the bin of 1000 screws.

Extreme one way: Don't write up NCR for bent screws...ever.

Extreme the other way: write up NCR for everything that wasn't ideal.

Reality: If there was a 2% reject rate for screws, you'd hear the assembly folks cursing every minute of every day.
If every unusable screw generated paperwork, it would be management doing the cursing. (Which, I think, is where this thread started, though not with screws...)

Never write an NC if you can fix the problem: Unreasonable...broken system.
Write an NC every time a trash bag rips: Unreasonable...Overbearing system. (That's just the lowest cost thing I could think of...)

For the OP...it matters pretty much where the "scrap" came from, and why.
If it was big enough to include the word "disposition" in the process...it usually means that it was big enough to find out why it happened...and to document it.
I've never seen anyone disposition a bent screw...

 

[Bev D]

So my organization uses a financial threshold for documented NC/scrap. If the part is under the threshold, the operator tosses in a red bin and gets another part. there is no "NC record". the nonconforming part is identified and controlled because it is in controlled red scrap bin (think sharp's bin).

We really don't operators wasting time recording these events; we want them building shippable parts.

We DO however track the amount of scrap.

It's simple, we know how many of the parts we buy. We know how many are issued to the work order in our ERP system. and we know how many finished parts we yield. that gives us the amount of scrap - or as some call it - shrinkage. Is it precisely accurate - no. is it accurate enough to tell us if we have a problem to solve and it's relative cost to the organization - absolutely.

 

[Ninja]

Cost/benefit working well...great example!

 

[Sidney Vianna]

(good discussion BTW )

We could reduce a lot of speculation and assumptions if we knew the context of the OP’s organization including the type of product. Recording NCR data can lead to intelligent management decisions. Eg, if you know that 85% of your scrap is originating from swing shift, that is very useful data.

 

[AgnieszkaSz]

Being employed in injection moulding company now, I feel tempted to see this problem from a different angle. I completely agree that processes shouldn't produce scrap - and it is possible in assembly production. However, think about injection moulding of parts for which visual acceptance criteria are critical. It doesn't have to be car lights - it can be something as simple as a powder box. You wouldn't believe in scrap rates, they are often close to 50%. I can't even imagine proper NCR management in such cases - the effective corrective action would be tantamount to production stop. The trouble is, the injection moulding tool is usually designed and provided by customer - and customers often are aware that the tool has been wrongly designed or is in poor condition, but investments in new tooling are economically unacceptable for them. So both parties agree that scrap runs in the background and constitutes part of item price.