What action when a suspected NC is not confirmed?

[TWA - not the airline]

Hi folks!

We've just had an internal discussion and I've been wondering how people out there handle the following situation: Your procedure calls for all personnel to report suspected non-conformities and then for your MRB to assess the report. If the MRB decides that this is no NC, what actions need to follow (apart from documenting the decision and the rationale for it and maybe releasing material that was blocked due to the suspected NC)?
Is this in itself a NC? Do you need to perform a root cause analysis and define corrective actions? Do you need to disseminate this information and if so how would you do it? Up-date of specification documents like workmanship standards etc. or just training regarding this characteristic? Who takes such decisions and what guidance do they have?

Looking forward to your thoughts and comments.

Cheers,

TWA

 

[somashekar]

Suspected NC part, the MRB decide that it is no NC (with good reason) will form part of the awareness and training to the concerned personnel. Perhaps some inspection criteria gets amended after this MRB review.
The other way round is about concession / deviation authorized by responsible managers in the MRB, having looked into the fit form and function of the part in question.
Anything else amounts to a risky MRB up into getting bigger problems to the organization and its reputation.

 

[PaulJSmith]

I agree with somashekar. Perhaps you should review your inspection criteria and the understanding of that criteria by personnel, especially if this is a regular occurrence.

Overall, though, I don't believe you need to write a NC for this, as it sounds like your system is working as it is supposed to work. That people are questioning the conformity of things is almost always a good thing for your company.

 

[TWA - not the airline]

Thanks, somashekar and Paul for your answers. Traditionally our company has been good at doing the right things but not so good at documenting what we did and why. Our procedures likewise were rather generic and had few provisions/guidance but rather defined responsibilities for necessary actions in general. The system did work but for obvious reasons always was hard to defend in audits, so now it is much more formal. But every once in a while we are wondering how far you should go with that resp. how far other people went and what their experiences are. So it would be nice if someone could comment on this...

Best regards,

TWA

 

[somashekar]

Thanks, somashekar and Paul for your answers. Traditionally our company has been good at doing the right things but not so good at documenting what we did and why. Our procedures likewise were rather generic and had few provisions/guidance but rather defined responsibilities for necessary actions in general. The system did work but for obvious reasons always was hard to defend in audits, so now it is much more formal. But every once in a while we are wondering how far you should go with that resp. how far other people went and what their experiences are. So it would be nice if someone could comment on this...

Best regards,

TWA

There is no need that you document every bit that is done. The moment we begin to think of documenting every bit, we fail to understand the basic documentation requirement of "Documents needed by the organization to ensure the effective planning, operation and control of its processes".
I understand the depth in what you are stating.
You can see two options here like you can see two options in every given situation...
Document it
or
Rise the competency and awareness
Before you think of responding or defending to an audit process, check if you can clearly respond to yourself and to your process that are happening within your operations.
Documented procedure based response I see it as far less mature than a competency and awareness based response. Consistancy is the key here.