What's New Unreplied Topics Membership About Us Contact Us Privacy Policy
[Ad]

Non-conformance reporting system

Started by , Nov 26 2012 09:40 PM
2 Replies
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?
Share this Topic
Topics you might be interested in
Automatic Labeling System HACCP certification for SQG Ed 9.0 - System Element 2.1.1.5 BRC 1.1.6 Confidential reporting system New Metal Detector requirements in the food safety management system Foaming machines in a cleaning management system
[Ad]

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

Similar Discussion Topics
Automatic Labeling System HACCP certification for SQG Ed 9.0 - System Element 2.1.1.5 BRC 1.1.6 Confidential reporting system New Metal Detector requirements in the food safety management system Foaming machines in a cleaning management system How do you manage your food safety management system? PIF V6 - What system is best to use Internal auditing and non-conformance reporting software systems Implementing an FSSC 22000 Version 6 Compliant Food Safety and Quality Management System Implementing an FSSC 22000 Version 6 Compliant Food Safety and Quality Management System