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 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2016
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    10
    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:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1,860
    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 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2016
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    10
    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:
    715
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    62
    I would say flash is rework, unless you're intentionally flashing the part and have a process to deflash.
     
    G650ER likes this.
  5. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1,860
    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:
    715
    Likes Received:
    352
    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:
    254
    Likes Received:
    187
    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 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2016
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    10
    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:
    715
    Likes Received:
    352
    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:
    254
    Likes Received:
    187
    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...
     
  11. bkirch

    bkirch Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2016
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    7
    IATF put out sanctioned interpretation #9 which states for IATF 8.7.1.1(Customer Authorization for Concession), that getting customer authorization for "repair" of nonconforming product is required, but they have marked out "rework" from requiring customer authorization. So basically, if we are doing "repair" we need customer authorization but not for "rework", per the sanctioned interpretation. However, if you jump down to IATF 8.7.1.4 (Control of Reworked product), it states that if required by the customer, the organization shall obtain approval from the customer prior to commencing rework of the product. Maybe I am looking at it wrong, but it looks like the sanctioned interpretation for IATF 8.7.1.1(Customer Authorization for concession) and IATF 8.7.1.4(Control of Reworked Product) contradict one another. Am I wrong?
     
  12. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1,860
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Nope. The caveat is "if required by the customer"...
     
  13. bkirch

    bkirch Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2016
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    7
    With rework, IATF 8.7.1.4 states "the organization shall utilize a risk analysis (such as FMEA) methodology to assess risks in the rework process prior to a decision to rework the product." I am interested in hearing some thoughts on how to meet this requirement. If we have a need to do rework, we are going to consider how and what we are reworking, and consider the risk of doing that rework, using the same methodology as a PFMEA. So we would consider the possible failure modes and we would measure the severity, occurrence, and detection. We would also list actions to mitigate the risk. Is this a common approach? Is there a simpler approach?
     
  14. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1,860
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    It makes sense to me that, the rework process is as susceptible to failures as any of the original manufacturing processes. Indeed, the original process wasn't robust and resulted in rework and you don't want the rework process to end up in scrap!

    So, yes, a rework process - just for the actual steps of rework - should be produced. It should be fairly short and sweet.

    In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realize that the recently released AIAG/VDA FMEA would be a perfect fit to handle this.
     
  15. Ambrose

    Ambrose Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2020
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    What I know is that Rework is when the products are processed under the same manufacturing condition whereas the Repair is when the products are taken out of the original process and reprocessed.

    Trust this helps
     
  16. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1,860
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I don't believe this is a safe interpretation. I would advise you DON'T use it.
     
  17. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,171
    Likes Received:
    867
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    In the previous version of the standard 8.3 (Control of nonconforming product) is triggered by 8.2.4 (Monitoring and measurement of product). This is still reflected in the latest version (i.e. 8.6 and 8.7). When products are verified at appropriate stages (e.g. in-process, outgoing inspections), those that are found not conforming with the requirements must be dealt with appropriate actions. One of them is by rework.

    Flash removal at the production station while or immediately after the products are being collected from the mold is just part of the operators' WORK. So when flashes on products are still found during inspections (i.e. post-processing by operator) and were sent back to production for flash removal then that is RE-WORK.
     

Share This Page