-
--> Gary Larson (The Far side) has returned. <--
What's meant by ISO9001 clause 8.7 non conforming output?
- Thread starter sunrizenew
- Start date
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
As Jen indicated, the "outputs" in 8.7 refer to the deliverables (services or products) to the customer.
Yes, you can certainly have nonconformances in your processes that either do or do not affect deliverables. For example, part of the production process might be to store a record internally of some activity, yet for some reason employees are failing to do so. They are doing the activity properly but not recording it properly. You now have a nonconformance in the process, but the delivered product to the customer is conforming because this particular internal paperwork nonconformance did not affect the final output. In other cases, nonconformances (e.g., forgot to screw the cover onto the widget) could affect the final output.
The point is that 8.7 is a special subset of of nonconformances that is called out explicitly, because it speaks to what the customer receives. The more general clause regarding nonconformances is 10.2, which is how you want to handle nonconformances in general throughout the QMS.
Yes, you can certainly have nonconformances in your processes that either do or do not affect deliverables. For example, part of the production process might be to store a record internally of some activity, yet for some reason employees are failing to do so. They are doing the activity properly but not recording it properly. You now have a nonconformance in the process, but the delivered product to the customer is conforming because this particular internal paperwork nonconformance did not affect the final output. In other cases, nonconformances (e.g., forgot to screw the cover onto the widget) could affect the final output.
The point is that 8.7 is a special subset of of nonconformances that is called out explicitly, because it speaks to what the customer receives. The more general clause regarding nonconformances is 10.2, which is how you want to handle nonconformances in general throughout the QMS.
I don't agree with that.
For example, if a foundry produces a defective mold, that's a non-conforming "output". The mold is not a deliverable item for the end customer, but still, needs to be addressed.
If purchasing issues an incorrect PO to a supplier mis-specifying the raw material to be purchased, the PO is a non-conforming output (of the purchasing process). That PO, obviously is not a deliverable to the end customer, but can lead to defective products which would reach the customers.
For example, if a foundry produces a defective mold, that's a non-conforming "output". The mold is not a deliverable item for the end customer, but still, needs to be addressed.
If purchasing issues an incorrect PO to a supplier mis-specifying the raw material to be purchased, the PO is a non-conforming output (of the purchasing process). That PO, obviously is not a deliverable to the end customer, but can lead to defective products which would reach the customers.
My interpretation is based on the ISO Correlation matrix which correlates 2015 8.7 with 2008 8.3, the latter which specifically refers to "product":
It also seems that the placement of 8.7 in clause 8, directly after 8.6 Release of products and services, indicates that 8.7 refers to nonconforming products or services, and not to nonconformances in outputs of intermediary steps.
It also seems that since 10.2 covers all nonconformities, whether they are input ncs, output ncs, process ncs, etc., that 8.7 would be redundant unless it had a particular intent.
I could be wrong...there's a first time for everything.
It also seems that the placement of 8.7 in clause 8, directly after 8.6 Release of products and services, indicates that 8.7 refers to nonconforming products or services, and not to nonconformances in outputs of intermediary steps.
It also seems that since 10.2 covers all nonconformities, whether they are input ncs, output ncs, process ncs, etc., that 8.7 would be redundant unless it had a particular intent.
I could be wrong...there's a first time for everything.
My interpretation is based on the ISO Correlation matrix which correlates 2015 8.7 with 2008 8.3, the latter which specifically refers to "product":
It also seems that the placement of 8.7 in clause 8, directly after 8.6 Release of products and services, indicates that 8.7 refers to nonconforming products or services, and not to nonconformances in outputs of intermediary steps.
It also seems that since 10.2 covers all nonconformities, whether they are input ncs, output ncs, process ncs, etc., that 8.7 would be redundant unless it had a particular intent.
I could be wrong...there's a first time for everything.
It also seems that the placement of 8.7 in clause 8, directly after 8.6 Release of products and services, indicates that 8.7 refers to nonconforming products or services, and not to nonconformances in outputs of intermediary steps.
It also seems that since 10.2 covers all nonconformities, whether they are input ncs, output ncs, process ncs, etc., that 8.7 would be redundant unless it had a particular intent.
I could be wrong...there's a first time for everything.
