Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Non-conformance reporting system


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

D-D

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 239 posts
  • 54 thanks
5
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 November 2012 - 09:40 PM

Currently we have a form that is used for capturing all internal and external "NCRs".
Internal ones include issues that result in lost production time due to material not being delivered to the line in time, accidents causing equipment damage and slow running equipment. This is productivity and I think there is little value that QA can add to getting involved in issues like that.
External issues include supplier complaints and returns, which I would prefer to spin out as a separate system handled by Purchasing after the Reject stamp is applied by QA.
As far as QA involvement goes, I would like to see remedial and (root cause) corrective actions identified for any issue but otherwise rather than being dragged into everything I would prefer only to be involved with non-conforming material that has been made and its identification and fate after investigation of the issues. Is that a reasonable approach?
How do others handle their NCRs?



mgourley

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,304 posts
  • 955 thanks
221
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Plant City, FL
  • Interests:Cooking, golf, firearms, food safety and sanitation.

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:03 PM

Currently we have a form that is used for capturing all internal and external "NCRs".
Internal ones include issues that result in lost production time due to material not being delivered to the line in time, accidents causing equipment damage and slow running equipment. This is productivity and I think there is little value that QA can add to getting involved in issues like that.
External issues include supplier complaints and returns, which I would prefer to spin out as a separate system handled by Purchasing after the Reject stamp is applied by QA.
As far as QA involvement goes, I would like to see remedial and (root cause) corrective actions identified for any issue but otherwise rather than being dragged into everything I would prefer only to be involved with non-conforming material that has been made and its identification and fate after investigation of the issues. Is that a reasonable approach?
How do others handle their NCRs?


I know some operations that do NC/RCA for everything that goes "wrong". That is probably best practice, but it's hardly workable for most companies with limited manpower and time to dedicate to that.

Speaking from a purely "QA" point of view, I would focus on those NCR's that affect product safety, legality and quality. These require full blown RCA and Corrective Actions.

Supplier issues are logged in our master NCR list, but are handed over to Purchasing for resolution and report back so that the item can be closed out. These generally do not require a full blown RCA.

Issues generated from Internal Audits are entered into the master NCR list and the person(s) responsible for the area being audited has the responsibility for corrective action and report back so that the item can be closed out. Once again, these generally do not require a full blown RCA.

Marshall


Thanked by 2 Members:

D-D

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 239 posts
  • 54 thanks
5
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:22 PM

Thanks Marshall; good to get a second opinion and to confirm other people's thoughts and yours are pretty much the same as mine.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users