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.

Reworked product - IATF 8.7.1.4

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by bkirch, Jan 15, 2020.

  1. bkirch

    bkirch Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2016
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    7
    Could I get a definition for what would be considered reworked product as mentioned in IATF 16949 section 8.7.1.4? If we had an issue with a dimension per the part print, and we worked on the parts to fix the dimension, I would definitely call that rework. If we are just sorting bad product from good product, and scrapping the bad product, I would call this sorting not rework. But, what if we have an issue with the parts that is not dimensionally related, for example flash on the parts, would it be considered rework if he hold the parts and remove the flash?
     
  2. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,236
    Likes Received:
    1,630
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Sounds good to me. Rework is as you describe. Repair, however, is quite a bit different...
     
  3. bkirch

    bkirch Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2016
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    7
    I know some people who hold the view that if you are physically altering the part, it is rework or repair.. If you are not physically altering the part, it is not rework or repair. So, in their opinion, removing flash from a part would not be considered rework, since the actual part is not being altered. I think I have to disagree, because it if the customer says "no flash" then the parts are non-conforming, and removing the flash would make them acceptable, and therefore this is rework.
     
  4. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    62
    I would say flash is rework, unless you're intentionally flashing the part and have a process to deflash.
     
  5. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,236
    Likes Received:
    1,630
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I agree with you. A tool, if run correctly should produce no flash. The removal of the flash is rework, because the part shouldn't HAVE the extra material. It's not "right first time". I encountered a situation a loooong time ago when a line fitted a crimped connector to a ribbon cable and then tested for shorts/opens. Sometimes they had to cut off the connector and, without shortening the cable under spec., could refit the connector. I pointed out they needed to treat it as non-conforming and count it as rework. You should have seen the shocked faces...
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2020
    Nicholas777 likes this.
  6. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Some processes are designed to flash such as thermoset molding. OP hasn't identified his specific process.
     
  7. Eric Twiname

    Eric Twiname Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Northeast USA
    "If we had an issue with a dimension per the part print, and we worked on the parts to fix the dimension, I would definitely call that rework."
    "Unless you're intentionally flashing the part and have a process to deflash"

    I think it all gets summed up right there.
    If your process defines steps to take "in case"...then it isn't rework...dimensions, flash, whatever.
    Rework is outside of the defined process...if measuring and possibly recutting is part of the process, then "fixing the dimension" is not rework...if removing flash is a defined part of the process, then it, too, is not rework.

    If your process is defined to not have these steps, then it is rework.

    "Should" doesn't have much play here...
     
  8. bkirch

    bkirch Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2016
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    7
    Continuing with the "flash" example, the flash should have been removed in the normal process. There was a breakdown in the process, and parts with flash on them escaped out of the normal process. At a later date, it was discovered that we had parts staged for shipping which had flash on them. In the eyes of the customer, these parts would be considered nonconforming. We placed the parts on hold and filed off the flash. The filing of the flash took place offline, outside of the defined normal process.
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  9. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    62
    I would call that rework. And your questions are how did that happen?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2020
    Eric Twiname likes this.
  10. Eric Twiname

    Eric Twiname Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Northeast USA
    "...the flash should have been removed in the normal process. There was a breakdown in the process..."
    There's your answer right there.
    Totally rework, no other option.

    That does NOT mean that all flash removal is rework, but if it is outside of the normal process and you perform work on the parts again...well...that's what the word rework means...
     

Share This Page