Type of non conformities
Hi,
I would like to create a list of categories of non-conformities in our QA system in order to make a better review after a period of time.
Does someone has a shortlist of type of NC's which fulfill the FSSC standards.
It is intended that the staff in different departments (QA, production, maintenance,...) can understand and work with the different categories.
Thank you so much for sharing!! :spoton:
Wkr,
Hi,
I would like to create a list of categories of non-conformities in our QA system in order to make a better review after a period of time.
Does someone has a shortlist of type of NC's which fulfill the FSSC standards.
It is intended that the staff in different departments (QA, production, maintenance,...) can understand and work with the different categories.
Thank you so much for sharing!! :spoton:
Wkr,
Hello Roeland,
Thanks for yr query and Welcome to the Forum !
It's a novel request but i fear the (short)list sought will be of near-infinite length. :smile:
Hopefully someone will prove me wrong. :smile:
Good Luck !
Hello Roeland and welcome to the IFSQN.
:welcome:
It will help if you could tell us your product and process as this will narrow the list of defects.
Regards,
Simon
Hi, Roland.
You can not make a shortlist, each clause of the Standard may contain one or more nonconformities and depending on the magnitude/importance nonconformity can be Major, Minor, or simply a observation
I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for but we had this sort of categorising before. We had daily ops meetings so issues were always raised with the relevant department with 24 hours of being discovered. It became quite useful as it gave clear guidance where the biggest issues were and where to focus our energy to reduce occurrences.
Attached Files
Wyldlce
Nice chart, But as Charles said, the list of NC's can be infinite. What exactly is a "production" non-conformance? What exactly is a
"mechanical" or a "quality" non-conformance?
It would seem that there would have to be very specific criteria for categorizing non-conformances into these categories.
Where does it end? And are there enough minutes in the day to do RCA's on everything?
Just from a BRC perspective, the Standard talks about things that will affect food safety, quality and legality. So let's assume those three things should be non-conformance categories.
From there, we should determine what constitutes a food safety, quality or legality non-conformance.
The gearbox directly above a product line is leaking, and the catch pan that WAS there, no longer is. BINGO food safety item.
The framework on the outside of the product belt needs some detail cleaning. Not a food safety item. It still needs to be cleaned, it's noted and assigned to be fixed, but I don't see that it needs to become a part of a full blown NC/CA list.
Marshall
I'll admit the categories are a little ambiguous but the NC's were initiated on anything that could affect product or production, not just on food safety or quality issues. If we were to only focus on one area then there would be multiple NC systems being run across the company each being managed (or not) by each department. By combining them all under the one system it enabled us to better manage the system and clearly identify problems.
And obviously you need to use your own judgement on what needs to be recorded. If you do an end of day clean inspection and something was missed you simply ask them to re-clean it. If it continually happens you raise an NC. It all comes down to what works best for you and your company that also covers your certification requirements.
I'll admit the categories are a little ambiguous but the NC's were initiated on anything that could affect product or production, not just on food safety or quality issues. If we were to only focus on one area then there would be multiple NC systems being run across the company each being managed (or not) by each department. By combining them all under the one system it enabled us to better manage the system and clearly identify problems.
And obviously you need to use your own judgement on what needs to be recorded. If you do an end of day clean inspection and something was missed you simply ask them to re-clean it. If it continually happens you raise an NC. It all comes down to what works best for you and your company that also covers your certification requirements.
Many thks for the chart. Most appreciated. IMO a courageous but doomed attempt. Regardless i daresay the auditor loved it. Especially for trends.
i would have liked to see a category for "Blunders" which IMEX often top the financial hit-list. And energize the meeting. :smile:
As they say, there are lies, damned lies and "S". "What works best for you" seems to suitably acknowledge the subjective basis. Whether such can be made compatible with "certification requirements" might need a little re-prioritization IMO.
Can make two deductions -
(a) The Chart was not prepared by Production or QA Departments.
(b) Something amiss with the Syrup.
Many thks for the chart. Most appreciated. IMO a courageous but doomed attempt. Regardless i daresay the auditor loved it. Especially for trends.
i would have liked to see a category for "Blunders" which IMEX often top the financial hit-list. And energize the meeting. :smile:
As they say, there are lies, damned lies and "S". "What works best for you" seems to suitably acknowledge the subjective basis. Whether such can be made compatible with "certification requirements" might need a little re-prioritization IMO.
Can make two deductions -
(a) The Chart was not prepared by Production or QA Departments.
(b) Something amiss with the Syrup.
The chart was produced by the QA department, namely me, but it was also a part of a much larger data system. This was simply used as a breakdown for monthly reports, the system itself was much more invovled. I was simply sharing the categories we used which were clearly based on our production as not every factory has a 'Syrup Room' :)
The chart was produced by the QA department, namely me, but it was also a part of a much larger data system. This was simply used as a breakdown for monthly reports, the system itself was much more invovled. I was simply sharing the categories we used which were clearly based on our production as not every factory has a 'Syrup Room' :)
Interesting. The scope referred previously seems outside a conventional QA function. Perhaps a combined Q/P Hat ? Not unique by any means.
Personally, as noted mgourley, it seems to me preferable to separate Safety/Non-Safety related issues from a CAR POV. But that would certainly have complicated the chart.
Yes, "Quality is Everybody's Business" but Safety is perhaps even more so ?
Interesting. The scope referred previously seems outside a conventional QA function. Perhaps a combined Q/P Hat ? Not unique by any means.
Personally, as noted mgourley, it seems to me preferable to separate Safety/Non-Safety related issues from a CAR POV. But that would certainly have complicated the chart.
Yes, "Quality is Everybody's Business" but Safety is perhaps even more so ?
Absolutely, but we combined this into each area which is responsible for itself (with standard QA monitoring of course :biggrin: ). The NC forms themselves had the severity levels on them which could be charted separately but the data was being recorded.
Many thks for the chart. Most appreciated. IMO a courageous but doomed attempt. Regardless i daresay the auditor loved it. Especially for trends.
I quite like these sort of charts, 'doomed' seems a bit harsh! as you point out they are useful to identify trends. I prefer by department with a few others such as product NC's but don't see as it matters how you categorize for the purpose of analyzing trends as long as you are consistent.
I think it is better if you show a split, such as by colour coding the columns between major and minor NC's.
Regards,
Tony