Agreed...Don't throw caution to the wind on this one! The intent of the standard here is to prevent the abuse of some organizations using the '94 standard to still process/ship n-c product. There now is the requirement to require someone to be held to the fire if she/he decides to continue using a product that has been identified as n-c. Note also that the requirement to segregate the material/items has been moved to the ISO 9004 Guidelines for Improvement. By requireing a documented system which describes who in the organization has the <revelant> authority to issue concessions, including any re-work or repairs needed, if allowed by the customer; folks now must contend with having to offically declare that they have made the decissions necessarily effecting the product/service. These primarily involve internal specifications and requirements.
When a particular n-c product/service does not meet the customer requirements, concession must come from the customer, or the customer's representative, which ever the case. For customer requirements, the revelant authority would not be someone inside the organization, which is why the "and where applicabale" clause is put in the standard.
The first deals with in-house specified requirement n-c, the second deals with external customer specified requirements n-c.
Simply put: form, fit, function, etc, would not absolve an automobile OEM to decide that I will accept a green 4WD pick-up truck when what I ordered was a red one, even though they both would perform as desired, etc.
This issue is probably why a lot of industries will 'down-grade' products and offer these products for sale at a reduced price. :thedeal:
8.3
