Difference between clause 8.7 and 10.2

Hello Jennifer,

I have a doubt about this. Where in the standard does it say or imply that "this now includes outputs from upstream"?

 

If an NCR is required for the procurement process due to a bad written Purchase Order, who would raise it? The user that required the material?

 

If found by the auditor it's a NC and he writes it up.

 

Thank you Andy. You are right it was about responsibility. And I agree with you that no every event should trigger an NCR, that would create an undesirable environment where everyone is waiting for the moment to point a finger at you when you make a mistake.

 

One method to reduce errors on PO's is to designate someone (dept admi) to sample inspect PO's daily or weekly depending on the number of PO's generated and do an inspection and record the findings. Human error can be the result of requiring too much info to be entered on the PO.

 

Inspection should only be dropped if a process is consistently and statistically in-control.

 

Too much info may be the problem but to confirm it would require an inspection of POs. Someone who knows what info is required on POs could check through recent PO records and identify any errors and/or too much info required. After the 'inspection' management will be able to initiate corrective action based on statistical facts.

 

Many POs have numerous sections that must be completed and many times these are not filled in. During an audit seeing numerous POs incomplete could result in a non-conformance. Modify the PO/requisition to only include mandatory information to be entered - Supplier, Part number, Quantity, Date, Delivery address, person ordering, etc.
The name of the game is 'Keep it Simple'.

 

A root-cause will be completed only if we discover it is worthy of RC. That is why we are inspecting the POs - to determine the defect trend

 

I establish the parameters.

 

Typically a PO is a document intended to communicate an organization's requirements to its suppliers and POs are usually prepared by the Purchasing Dept/Officer. A document commonly used to communicate externally. Normally, a Purchase Request or Requisition (PR) is prepared prior to accomplishing a PO. PRs are used to communicate internally the requestors' need. Once the PR is approved, and if there's a need to buy from suppliers, the information contained in it are transferred into the PO, usually by the Purchasing Dept/Officer. If the Purchasing Dept/Officer is already tasked to ensure proper accomplishment of PO, why should we assign someone to perform inspection of the completed POs?

Putting an additional step for inspection of POs doesn't go well with "Keep It Simple". The controls are already in place. If the output, despite of the controls, turns out to be nonconforming, then the nonconforming output should be corrected. Cause analysis, on the other hand, should be intended to identify the control/s that will prevent the nonconforming output to happen. Inspection does not prevent the occurrence of nonconforming output. Quality must be designed into the product (process for this context) not inspected into it, as popularly quoted by many.