Could I have some opinions on the differences, use, and purpose of these documents?
Discrepant Material Report. (DMR)
And
Corrective Action Report (CAR)
When would you use a DMR?
What information would be contained in the Document?
When would you initiate a Corrective Action Report (CAR)?
What information would be contained in the Document?
And what is the function of each?
DMR, I use that when a piece of material is received and we find something wrong with it to prevent us from using it on the project that it was purchased for. I write up a description of the problem and give it to our Purchasing Dept and wait for their instructions as to what to do with the piece. Save it and use the good portion, repair the piece, save and send back to supplier...ect.
CAR, I use that when I have written several non-conformances and need monitor or change a procedure to make sure the procedure is producing the results that I need. ie. Saw drops were found to not contain enough info to trace the piece back to a MTR, changes had to be made to the procedure for saw drops(added additional info) and also monitored for a couple weeks to make sure the saw operator was applying the extra info required. The CAR just documents this action.
I came across a Hybrid DMR report of sorts, and I think it may be confusing to the people who are trying to use it.
Now correct me if im wrong but a DMR
1) It describes Product discrepancy ( incoming ,in process ,final).
2) It gets routed to the Engineer and he decides if its: use as is, scrap, rework , or return (route to purchasing).( engineerig would also give a Disposition and instructions concerning the discrepancy).
3) It then is routed back to QC documented/filed and executed.
This is only for one lot/part.
A CAR is an in-depth look of the system: discription of problem, root cause analyisis,Suggested remedy, implimentation, and follow up on effectiveness .
this is all for the process to prevent a reoccurrence.
The DMR in question has a discrepancy description ,a suggestion on how to prevent reoccurrences, and the remedy.
Its routed to the department signed by them and returned to QC (never sees an engineer for disposition )
This DMR seems like a useless document because of the format and routing.
It seems to fall short of satisfying either documents intentions.
Basically there needs to be 2 documents to function as desired, right.
Or am I sweating the small stuff?
MDK
Your forms can have any format you choose as long as the information is conveyed to the proper people. I would not say the DMR is a useless it's just an NCR for dealing with only material. A CAR is the resultant of continuous NCR's of the same issue. My NCR's deal with material, draings, routings, etc.
Brian
The main thing to do is use the KISS method.
Brian
John pretty much nailed it. The only thing I would add is that you should issue a Corrective Action Request when you have a nonconformance where the root cause is assigned to a supplier; they in return send you a CARR, or CAR Response. In other words, we found this nonconforming condition with the material you supplied to us, please tell us what your corrective action is. Assign a due date for the response. Have them go into as much detail as you want. Most of the ones I see contain the 5 whys outlined.
Since you asked, what you call a DMR is known here as an NCR (nonconformance report). This report, when dealing with discrepant material will contain a basic description of the material, the discrepancy, an investigation of the cause and a disposition (scrap, use as-is, etc.).
DMR For reporting discrepansies or rejects of materials or parts.
This may or may not constitute a CAR which is used in response to a defect or discrepancy that you have determined exists because something is not right be it the procedure or some other root cause and to determine if an action is needed to correct this from reoccurring.
When would you use a DMR?
depends on the Quality Control System in place and the paper trail required.
What information would be contained in the Document,
There again depends on the procedures being followed for Quality Control, but at a minimum the discrepancy and a means of identifying and the items dispensation.
When would you initiate a Corrective Action Report (CAR)?
When the discrepancy has been determined to have been created due to a problem in process or procedure.
What information would be contained in the Document?
Information about the Concern
Department, Process, or Procedure: Date:
Description of the Concern or Nonconformance:
Is this a Nonconformance? Why or Why Not?
If Nonconformance then describe the root cause of Nonconformance:
Suggested Action:
Report Compiled and submitted by: Date:
Investigated by: Date:
Findings and Disposition:
Hope this Helps More than Hurts
I shouldn't have went and ate the burger before refreshing the page John and Curt beat me again.
Here is a copy of what I developed.
Brian
Mine is somewhat similar.
Brian,
My personal preference is to also have room on the NCR for describing any actions that need to be taken to prevent future reoccurrence of the current nonconforming condition.
Mankenberg
But a CAR would still be issued right?
Not necessarily. Let me do an example scenario. During a line walkdown it's discovered that a certain joint was made up using the wrong bolts. An NCR is issued. It is determined that the procedures in place should be adequate to ensure this doesn't happen, so this nonconformance appears related to operator error or lack of knowledge. As a result the NCR is dispositioned Rework (by changing out the bolts), and the action to prevent future reoccurrence is training in the procedural requirements. This same situation happens a couple more times. The quality tech/engineer/manager/etc sees the trend and understands this needs to get raised a notch - obviously training to rectify a lack of knowledge was not the corrective action needed. He/she issues a CAR, and the process of continuous improvement continues.
Quick simple example and maybe not even a good one, but it should illustrate the point.
Mankenberg
THATS HOW I SEE IT
THANKS
MDK
Thank you for the input, and i notice that no one even hinted that they could be one in the same.
Now on the Auditing side would you accept that practice?
When and where you use any particular form should be detailed in your QA program. There are a lot of folks who try to do good work, but out of ignorance of the QA program requirements make up forms to help them out. That is Audit bait. Sometimes they assume a form such as CAR or DMR only is applicable to a given singular point. That to is Audit Bait.
CAR's in particular can be equated to fish in a barrel for an auditor as they will likely have several usages, and in a lot of cases, differences in intent and other factors. What is designated for design control may not be for inspection, or MT&E, or a host of other factors. Especially when they have been initiated by another program element such as an NRC.
You mentioned in a later post "I came across a Hybrid DMR report of sorts, and I think it may be confusing to the people who are trying to use it. Now correct me if im wrong but a DMR ..
That thought process is headed towards Audit bait. It could very well be doing exactly what your saying, but the report being hybrid does not necessarily exclude it from use based on the issuing organizations QA program. That particular one could touch on elements 2-19 of a QA program. If it's a supplier's progam that is already approved then it's going to hit element 8 and go downhill from there.
If the organization has no QA program and the work is non-q related, no problem. However, in recent years I've run across a lot of various suppliers who don't have a clue what their own program states, and how it all fits together. One or the other element of that organization did not understand how the other interfaced with it.
Im not saying that's your case, but the QA program in question should be detailing which form is which, how it's used, how it's stored, and who's responsible for what. That is where the answers to your questions should come from unless your trying to develope the program at this time.
Below is the basic framework for a N class QA program if it helps.
1-Introduction:
1. Purpose
2. Applicability
3. Responsibility
4. Terms and Definitions
2-Organization
1. Basic
2. Structure Responsibility
3. Interface Control
3-Quality Assurance Program
1. Basic
2. Indoctrination and Training
3. Qualification Requirements
4. Certification of Qualification
5. Records
4-Design Control
1. Basic
2. Design Input
3. Design Process
4. Design Analyses
5. Design Verification
6. Change Control
7. Interface Control
8. Software Design Control
9. Documentation and Records
5-Procurement Document Control
1. Basic
2. Content of the Procurement Documents
3. Procurement Document Review
4. Procurement Document Change
6-Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings
1. Basic
7-Document Control
1. Basic
2. Document Control
3. Document Changes
8-Control of Purchased Items and Services
1. Basic
2. Supplier Evaluation and Selection
3. Bid Evaluation
4. Control of Supplier-Generated Documents
5. Acceptance of Item or Service
6. Control of Supplier Nonconformances
7. Commercial Grade Items and Services
8. Records
9-Identification and Control of Items
1. Basic
2. Identification
3. Specific Requirements
10-Control of Special Processes
1. Basic
2. Process Control
3. Responsibility
4. Records
11-Inspection
1. Basic
2. Inspection Requirements
3. Inspection hold Points
4. Inspection Planning
5. In-Process Inspection
6. Final Inspections
7. Records
12-Test Control
1. Basic
2. Test Requirements
3. Test Procedures (Other than for Computer Programs)
4. Computer Program Test Procedures
5. Test Results
6. Test Records
13-Control of Measuring and Test Equipment
1. Basic
2. Selection
3. Calibration and Control
4. Records
14-Handling, Storage, and Shipping
1. Basic
2. Special Requirements
3. Procedures
4. Tools and Equipment
5. Operators
6. Marking and Labeling
15-Inspection, Test, and Operating Status
1. Basic
16-Control of Nonconforming Items
1. Basis
2. Identification
3. Segregation
4. Disposition
17-Corrective Action
1. Basic
18-Quality Assurance Records
1. Basic
2. Generation of Records
3. Authentication of Records
4. Classification
5. Receipt Control of Records
6. Storage
7. Retention
8. Maintenance of Records
19-Audits
1. Basic
2. Scheduling
3. Preparation
4. Performance
5. Reporting
6. Response
7. Follow-Up Action
8. Records
Gerald, you bring up a very valid and often overlooked point. A lot of people in smaller businesses overlook the potential for audits. If Mike's company is using forms and has no quality management system in place, that is a sure sign of trouble down the road. If a QMS is implemented, then there must be an SOP for use of the forms (for example in ISO 9001 the use of a DMR would be covered by one of the six required documented procedures, most likely control of nonconforming material).
The entire quality industry is moving more toward the concept of a Business Management System, as opposed to simply a Quality Management System. This is because QMS is really a misnomer, especially under ISO, which is designed to be a top-to-bottom business management and organization system. The key part of any QMS is the internal auditing of your operation, which can tell you not only are you doing things the way you say you do, but serves as a tool to record data for improvement of the system. If you're doing your audits regularly, then forms such as the DMR will be subject to periodic review, necessarily including the form's relevance and effectiveness.
Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / Corrective Action Report and Discrepant Material Report.
