Welcome to ISO Quality
Tìm kiếm
Home · Topics · Downloads · Your Account · Forums · Top 10
 
 


 
 
Modules

· Trang chủ
· Downloads
· FAQ
· News
· Recommend Us
· Search
· Statistics
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web_Links
· Your Account
 
 

 
 
Survey

How long have you been involved with ISO and related standards?

It's totally new to me
Less than 6 months
6 - 12 months
1 - 2 years
2 - 5 years
More than 5 years



Kết quả
Tất cả cuộc thăm dò

Số phiếu 5185
 
 

 
 
Who's Online

Hiện tại có 45 khách và 3 thành viên đang online.

Bạn là khách. Bạn có thể đăng kí bằng cách nhấn vào đây
 
 

 
 
Languages

Chọn ngôn ngữ dao diện:

 
 

 
 
Sources and Resources

RESOURCES:
ISO 17799 Toolkit
ISO 9000 Manual
ISO 14000 Kit

SOURCES (VIA BSI):
ISO 17799 / ISO 27001
ISO 9000
ISO 14000

 
 

 
 
ISO Quality: Forums
 
 


 
  QualityForums.Com :: View topic - Nonconformity requires Corrective Action in ALL cases?
 Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Login to check your private messagesLogin to check your private messages   LoginLogin 

Nonconformity requires Corrective Action in ALL cases?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    QualityForums.Com Forum Index -> ISO 9001
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
daisylue
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Jun 11, 2009
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:52 am    Post subject: Nonconformity requires Corrective Action in ALL cases? Reply with quote

Our registration auditor has stated that every identified nonconformity requires a full corrective action (which, for us requires a very formal root-cause analysis process be performed).

Is it not true that nonconformities must have a correction or fix or control for the specific instance, but may NOT require a corrective action? Is it up to us to determine if a nonconformity must go through a formal root-cause evaluation? I'm thinking of nonconformities that are insignificant in nature, for which we have determined a corrective action is more cost prohibitive than a simple fix, etc.

We interpreted the Standard's statements (8.5.2) to reflect this:

"Corrective actions shall be appropriate to the effects of the nonconformities encountered."

and

"evaluating the need for action to ensure that nonconformities do not recur" (where the need for action = the need for analysis)
Back to top
View users profile
Tman
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Apr 09, 2009
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi again.

Lots of manufacturing processes cause non-conforming product that is expected and not worth correcting.

For example, the more complex a bare printed circuit board is (many layers of circuitry, very thin complex copper traces and connecting vias, etc.), the greater number of rejects are going to be produced. Such a manufacturer will factor in the risk, and start a work order with enough to allow for scrap. If the customer is buying the circuit boards in paneled groups, the manufacturer will even work out a deal with the customer as to how many "X-outs" (bad boards) are allowable in a panel.

Simply state in the procedure why non-conforming parts are created, how they are sorted out, and what is the acceptable yield of good versus bad parts. Keep records of the yield.
Back to top
View users profile
daisylue
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Jun 11, 2009
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello again. icon_smile.gif

I thought so! We had a consultant working with us to develop our ISO system who has a manufacturing background and he was very clear on the point that all nonconformities do NOT need a corrective action. We are a computer support group (on the service side vs. production side of things), but I'm sure the same kind of thing could apply. A few auditors from this particular company have indicated to a few groups at our facility that every NC requires a CA. <this is a point of great frustration for us and our CA process owner is planning on revamping our procedure and process to remove the option of NOT producing a CA>
Back to top
View users profile
Tman
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Apr 09, 2009
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're on top of it.

-T-
Back to top
View users profile
sixsigmais
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Jul 01, 2009
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To play safe, it is better to have CA for the nonconformity.

Yes, some nonconformity is not necessary to have CA but it is necessary to have record for tracibility. Therefore, many company use CAR to convert both of them. However, some of the company break it down to two part, CAR and abnormality report while abnormality report is to record those nonconformity that no need to carry out CA but it is for tracibility
Back to top
View users profile Visit posters website
Tman
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Apr 09, 2009
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sixsigmais said, "To play safe, it is better to have CA for the nonconformity. Yes, some nonconformity is not necessary to have CA but it is necessary to have record for tracibility."

Play safe from what? What would conducting corrective actions that are more expensive than the benefits they could yield be safe for? Or, are you inferring that safeguards must be undertaken because ISO9001 requirements or ISO Registrar auditors require actions that are not cost effective?

ISO is not about creating rules for the sake of bureaucracy.

I'm sorry, but this philosophy is simply not true. Daisylue was very clear and specific that the defects were insignificant, and that addressing them would be a non-value added cost to the organization.

I know of a plastics injection molding company who made jewel cases for compact disks in the late 1980's. Due to the robotic equipment of their customers that placed the CDs into the jewel cases and packaged them, each customer had different microscopic precision size and weight specifications. These specs were down to millionths of a gram and millionths of a meter. It just so happened that there was a band at the center of the overall range of weight and size which was not acceptable to any of the customers. So, when any lot of jewel cases were produced in this band of the range, they had to be ground up for re-processing. Would it make sense to conduct corrective actions because the product was perfect?

Another company needed a certain type of transistor with a super high beta. Two of these transistors went into each graphics engine they assembled that sold for tens of thousands of dollars apiece. They found one manufacturer who made this transistor that in each lot of a thousand, a few of these transistors had this super high beta. The transistor was extremely cheap, less than $.01, so the customer bought the transistor by the bushel, and sorted out the special ones. The customer did the sorting themselves and erased the nomenclature on them, so that competitors wouldn't know how they got these special transistors. But, if the customer had required the supplier to do the sorting, would the supplier continually conduct corrective action on over 99% of their product when they were making a good profit by producing, sorting, and selling less than 1%?

ISO9001 is about improving an organization's performance. Performing corrective actions and collecting records on defects that are expected due to the nature of the process and too costly to avoid would be activity that only hampers the organization and increases the cost of manufacturing the product.

Simply stating why these insignificant defects occur, why they are expected, and why it would not be cost-effective to address them in the process documentation and work instructions will negate the need for performing endless corrective actions and creating useless records. This will then allow the organization to allocate those resources that would have gone into these non-value added activities into activities to improve processes and meeting the real requirements of ISO9001.
Back to top
View users profile
sixsigmais
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Jul 01, 2009
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ISO just a system for reference.
It never tell you how to do but what shall be done.

We shall work smart on the system and that's i get the ISO certificate within one year after the new factory set up
Back to top
View users profile Visit posters website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    QualityForums.Com Forum Index -> ISO 9001 All times are GMT + 10 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
 
 

Forums ©

 
 
All trademarks in this site are property of their respective owners.
ISO Forums: ISO 9000, ISO 17799, ISO 14000, Etc. FH
Web site engine's code is Copyright © 2003 by PHP-Nuke. All Rights Reserved. PHP-Nuke is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
Page Generation: 0.131 Giây