Where to report other kind of nc's?

Please feedback as how to manage non conformities.

Now, I have one method and want to improve it..

I have a NCR format according to 8.3 control of non conformity product, but is specifically used for product, onto it we apply dispositions.

Recently I was reported other kind of nonconformities:

- Operator fail to follow procedures.

- Lack of competence.

- People fails at filling out records, etc.

For events mentioned previously.

Which format do you think it is more recommended to raise non conformities of this type?

1 In the current format, considering it is just for product?
but adjusting it, mentioning that are included other issues, although some
of them will not have applied dispositions like if it were product?
Here a correction (disposition) will apply o maybe to be escalated to a CA.

2 To raise a CAR , mentioning the other different issues in it?
from here, a correction or full corrective action will apply.


What is practical to be followed?

Thanks

 

I use a NCR for product and (outsourced) services, for the rest I use a CAR, as you point out, NCR is better suited for product, the CAR has a wider scope. Set this up however it works best for you. I suppose they could be combined, but the methods in researching them may be different, so maybe that is not the best course of action. Here, any employee can raise a CAR, but the quality department issues NCR's. CAR's can often be handled by the Production team better anyway.

 

Good day Qualmx.
My recommendation is as follows. An NC is an NC. They all likely require corrective action. For that reason I recommend that the Scope of your 8.3 (now 10.2 in 2015 version) be reviewed and be applicable to any NC (safety, product ng, process out of spec, etc..etc..). This will prevent you from having redundant and fragmented methods. The logging of an NC should then segue into a corresponding corrective action...followed by review.

I would also caution in regards to cause vs affect and whether or not disposition applies. For example, if a cause (contributor) is "operator fails to follow procedures", then what is the disposition of his/her output? If the "...procedure" is how to produce parts, then the output (part) disposition needs to be determined. I would suggest that disposition always applies, and caution against having different approaches to "different" NC.

On a different topic, I notice that the associate is often referred to....

- Operator fail to follow procedures.
- Lack of competence.
- People fails at filling out records, etc.

It is a frequent problem in industry, where the associate is defined as a cause. This is inherently wrong (and possibly not what you are inferring. If you are not inferring this, then please accept my apology) and removes the focus from where it belongs...leadership. Poor associate performance/behavior begs us to examine the vetting process, the training process, the associate development process, etc... Please consider this as well.

Hope this helps.

 

Thank to all
But Andy,what about what format to use for those ncs, which are not product? What is better ,the ncr or the car format?

 

The better format, from my point of view, is the Internal Audit Corrective Action format.

 

Thanks mcw8888, I have just one format for all the Corrective actions (internal and external, for nonconformance reports,etc.
is this format what you mean?

 

Thanks Andy
Well, maybe I didnt explain it in detail.
When I raise a CAR, I use my format,into it,there are two sections, one for correction and other for the full analysis (fishbone,8D).
When the nc is minor,we just do a correction,when is major we develop the analysis to find the root cause.
For correction,I only verify action was done,for full analysis,I check the effectiveness.
Realy the root question is , for that type of ncs,what format is better,the Ncr format (product) or Car format.
Thanks
.

 

Thanks Jennifer,
But the method (format/document) to raising the nc´s was only one ? NCR for everything (products, competence, people attitude) or were managed in several documents?
Or some ncs required to ask a direct CAR?

In my RAC format I consider corrections in two steps, one section is just for containment and other for full corrective action (fishbone,8d), so in anyway when I fiend NC´s, I raise the RAC for both.
Could yoy please expain it?

Thanks

 

Hi Qualmx,

Why don't you just call them all NC's. An NC can be anything that is doesn't conform to something: be it the law, company policy or customer expectations.
I always try to be as consistent with the NC's as possible and just apply some kind of identifier for the type of NC. You can create a bunch of type like: Product, System (not working according to the system), law you name it. With respect to the correction, you almost always perform a certain correction to fix it. Fix the product, tell the person to follow the procedure, and change the way you work to follow the low. On top of that you might perform a corrective action to prevent it from happing in the future: Change production process, training people, hire a specialist for the laws and regulations.

You can just use NC's for all the incidents/issues as long as you use some kind of identifier to make it easier for yourself to find a certain type.

good luck

 

Thanks to all.

Hey Nick, I agree with you, I think the most important thing, it is to detect it and report it.
For that I use a document (format) with 2 sections, section 1 for product and services, I´ll register product NC´s, and applying dispositions like
rework, scrap, etc.
In section 2, I named System NC´s , in here, I register all the nc´s mentioned before (people, laws, lack of competence, etc)
and normally the disposition is: modify documents, formats, give some training (correction).
If I consider that nc´s from section1 and 2, deserve a Corrective action, then I raise a CAR
Because my original format for the product NC´s. cover only 8.3, then I modified in order to cover ncs´s from all the sources.
That way I use same format and dont create a new one for that.
By the way, the addressing of the special nc´s, where clause do they fall in? I suppose in 8.5.2 (9001 2008), compared
to 8.3 which covers non conformance product.

Thanks for your time