|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums 
|
|
|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums
|
The New Elsmar Cove Forums
|
 The New Elsmar Cove Forums
 ISO 9000:1994
 Why identify conforming products?
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Why identify conforming products? |
|
Madhu Pentamsetty unregistered |
posted 02 April 2001 03:16 PM
 
In my company we identify the status of non-conforming products with red tags. The status of conforming products is not identified. Does "4.12 Inspection and Test Status" require us to identify the conforming products also? Can I write the procedure as....äonly non-coforming products are identified..all other unidentified inspected products will be considered to be conformingä? IP: Logged |
|
Laura M Forum Contributor Posts: 299 |
posted 02 April 2001 04:23 PM
 
This requirement is more at identifying whether or not product has been tested. Some products go through several phases of manufacturing and testing. If product is In-process, you need to know if its been tested or not. Obviously product that has failed will be identified as rejected, but how do you ensure it all gets tested? I suppose there are other reasons, but this is usually the most obvious. Laura IP: Logged |
|
Al Dyer Forum Wizard Posts: 622 |
posted 02 April 2001 06:07 PM
Agree, All product has to be identified, usually through some type of traveller or job sheet that notes basic product information and that the previous operation has been completed and the product is waiting to be moved to a subsequent operation. Auditors live to find a carton or bin of unidentified material, probable because if a company can't control such a visible aspect of the system (especially on audit day!) there are probably further failures. ASD... IP: Logged |
|
Dan Larsen Forum Contributor Posts: 137 |
posted 03 April 2001 12:09 AM
quote: Consider the situation where someone "forgets" to red tag the nonconforming product. If there were to be any default, I would think that unidentified material should be considered nonconforming. Except that then the standard says it must be identified. Bottom line...tag/identify both good and bad (and I fully agree that the traveler or router for acceptable product is sufficient identification). IP: Logged |
|
Don Watt Forum Contributor Posts: 70 |
posted 03 April 2001 09:26 AM
I'd be interested to know how others identify conforming product in a one piece flow situation. e.g. several distinct operations in a manufacturing cell, with product on all stations. IP: Logged |
|
energy Forum Contributor Posts: 228 |
posted 03 April 2001 11:56 AM
Our GM asked a consultant if it would be permissable to consider all material in bins and on racks in our distribution division, which are labeled with identification only, as acceptable product. Because our incoming inspection deemed the material acceptable, it would be permissable to state that all discrepant material is quarantined for disposition and that all acceptable material is placed in bins or stored on racks. I listened and don't have that confidence that it will fly. But, we will see, won't we? IP: Logged |
|
Alf Gulford Forum Contributor Posts: 60 |
posted 03 April 2001 01:33 PM
Although I get a little nervous about it sometimes, our position is that, unless they're identified as non-conforming, our thousands of different parts are considered good. This system has passed muster with a couple of different registrars. Every employee they talked to knew how to answer the question and was able to explain how to handle non-conforming parts. This may not work for everyone, but it can work. Alf IP: Logged |
|
Dan Larsen Forum Contributor Posts: 137 |
posted 03 April 2001 03:15 PM
I am guessing here, but I suspect that in each of the last three posts inspection status of the material as conforming is covered. Remember that "conformance" can be demonstrated by appropriate signoffs on routers, ID tags, etc. Don, most cells I've seen track production somehow, either by time on a container or by individual SN if the part is big enough. I'd also assume you have in process controls/inspection to capture conformance. Therefore, for the work in process (at each station) the assumption is that it conforms until proven otherwise, and this would be addressed by traceable process control/inspections for the parts that are produced (assuming, of course, that they are ID'ed as they come out of the cell. For the stock on the shelf, as Energy reports, the stock is ID'ed. Again, I don't see a problem. Upon receipt, there is an "either/or" tagging situation involved. The only time I get nervous is when one of the situations involves NO tag...face facts, people do forget. Of course, if the stock ID is traceable to an inspection record, that's even better. As for Alf's case, the only question I have is...are the containers of "good" product identified? As in Energy's situation, if the containers are identified, then you have an "either/or" tagging system. If they aren't identified at all, I see that as a violation of 4.8. What got me nervous on the original post was the suggestion that the parts wouldn't be identified at all (not an uncommon problem in a small company with a limited type of product). IP: Logged |
|
Laura M Forum Contributor Posts: 299 |
posted 03 April 2001 03:24 PM
Identification is required by 4.8 ORiginal question was Inspection and TEst status. Most companies handle together, but to get at the first post, product ID is the "what is it?" Inspection Status is "how is it." IP: Logged |
All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
Hop to: |
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!
Main Site Search 
