UAI (Use As Is) Disposition of Nonconforming Product

[Jim Wynne]

Friends,

Last Paragraph from ISO 9001:2008 Clause 8.3:

Records of the nature of nonconformities and any subsequent actions taken, including concessions obtained, shall be maintained (see 4.2.4).

Stijloor.

Nature of nonconformity is presumably described in the NCR. The subsequent action taken is the use-as-is disposition. We don't know if there are customer concessions involved. The record is the NCR with the disposition--the OP wouldn't have known about this if there hadn't been a record.

As I said earlier, the OP's requirements should be beefed up to include requirements for describing the rationale behind any disposition of NC material.

 

[Big Jim]

Respectfully, the auditee contends that they meet such requirement by simply recording the nature of the nonconformity (NCR) and subsequent action taken (UAI dispo). By the way, i lean to agree with the auditee - I don't see anywhere that the organization is directly in violation to the standard unless somewhere in 8.4 Analysis of data. Please explain your position in regard to this matter.

I don't see how 8.4 is involved in the matter at hand. The opening statement for 8.4 is "The organization shall DETERMINE, collect, and analyze data . . . " One of the four topics that you are required to do this with is product quality. But still, the organization gets to determine what data to analyze as long as they cover the four topics.

 

[RogerG]

I'd take a slightly different approach. Unfortunately many are way too concerned about audit findings and not about the true value of quality in their design and production (not anyone here, but we've all seen it).

If we are having deviations AND we are deciding to use as is then we either are making the wrong decision or we have an incorrect specification for the parts in question. If you can use them once you can use them forever and if you can use them forever then why not change the spec?

When parts are too tightly spec'd everyone loses.

 

[Quality Dave]

RogerG,
Words ring true about getting wrapped up on the audit finding itself rather than address the root cause - product having been toleranced too tightly. My initial post was to draw upon the collective expertise of the group in order to calibrate my ISO interpretation - which this experience has.
Thank you and to everyone that weighed in on this subject matter. dave

 

[Trackerii]

I don't have the procedure directly in front of me - I'm hung up on the following text regarding the disposition of nonconforming product: "records of the evaluation shall be recorded". My interpretation of an evaluation, in a technical sense requires some record of an analysis and hopefully rationale as to why bad is now okay. To me, an evaluation is more than simply writing "Accept as Is". I'm disappointed that the ISO 9000:2005 cites the word evaluation 11 times but gives not clear definition of its meaning.

I agree a UAI without an evaluation and/or supporting documentation of test/analysis is just a comment not an evaluation.