1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice
You must be a registered member in order to post messages and view/download attached files in this forum.
Click here to register.

NTF work instruction (No trouble found)

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by russell nugent, Jun 6, 2022.

  1. russell nugent

    russell nugent Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2022
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    7
    Hello again

    I have been given a lovely task of creating a NTF process instruction .

    If possible do you have any advice or examples of how I can thread this into our current 8D process .

    Looking for something simple and systematic , any help would be appreciated .
     
    russell nugent, Jun 6, 2022
    #1
    John C. Abnet and qmr1976 like this.
  2. Miner

    Miner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    493
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    Greater Milwaukee USA
    I recommend that you tread very carefully on this. In my experience, NTF has often been the result of:
    • Not fully understanding the needs of the customer or the application (e.g., product may work over 80% of the tolerance, but not at one extreme or the other)
    • Intermittent failures
    • Failure to duplicate the conditions necessary to replicate failure
    • Cause of failure hidden by physical changes caused by transportation shock and vibration (e.g., shorts or opens that change due to vibration)
     
    Miner, Jun 6, 2022
    #2
    Andy Nichols, Bev D and John C. Abnet like this.
  3. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    709
    Likes Received:
    510
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Upper Midwest- USA
    Good day @russell nugent ;
    In addition to the wise counsel provide by @Miner , I would counsel as follows...
    1- Don't create an "additional" document/layer of activity.
    2- Consider a potential current/existing/logical "document" (process) onto/into which to incorporate.
    3- Assuming your organization already has a process for corrective action, why not simply incorporate into 'that' ?
    i.e. For example, a problem solving discipline (e.g. 5 whys), SHOULD be able to also identify when the result of a problem investigation points to...
    a) an entity OTHER than your organization or within the control of your organization as the culprit (customer??? ;))
    b) an improperly identified 'problem' (e.g. no problem found due to...
    i. originally inaccurate problem statement
    ii. originally wrong diagnosis


    As @Miner pointed out. Be CAREFUL that semantics/splitting hairs doesn't raise its head when dealing with a dissatisfied customer. However, the goal of problem solving is to find THE root cause. If there is no problem...then facts need to clearly identify that there is no gap between customer requirement and the provided output. If there was simply a mis-assignment of problem statement and/or responsibility, then the data/facts as result of problem solving discipline(s) should also identify that outcome objectively.

    Summary:
    The outputs of root cause analysis (your organization's existing corrective action process ???)....should ALREADY have multiple potential result avenues, such as ...
    A- your organization's internal process(es). Your organization's responsibility.
    B- process within your organization's control,...i.e. supplier: Your organization's responsibility.
    C- process OUTside your organization's control...i.e. customer: Be tactful...have proverbial 'ducks in a row'....have OBJECTIVE evidence .
    D- NTF: Again..as @Miner stated...ensure due diligence was done and OBJECTIVE evidence is gathered /provided.


    Hope this helps
    Be well.
     
    John C. Abnet, Jun 6, 2022
    #3
  4. Bev D

    Bev D Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    664
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Maine
    I echo what Miner said. Each of the failure situations that he has listed require strong engineering thought, curiosity and a bias that the Customer did indeed experience a failure. (i.e. not a bias that thinks that all Customers are out to cheat the company). I have seen these situations countless times in my past. The thing about these is that it is difficult to articulate the process in a lot of detail. Miner probably has a good enough listing of things to check for.

    I have a had a similar list of things to do with NTF occurences. The first step is to escalate to an engineering team to investigate.
     
    Bev D, Jun 7, 2022
    #4
  5. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    2,560
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    All of the above! The auto industry is wasting millions of (insert your local currency) chasing issues related to customer dissatisfaction and they do NOT want to hear "no fault found".
     
    Andy Nichols, Jun 7, 2022
    #5
    John C. Abnet likes this.
  6. russell nugent

    russell nugent Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2022
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    7
    Thanks for al the above advice .
     
    russell nugent, Jun 9, 2022
    #6
    John C. Abnet and Andy Nichols like this.