vdoc

178 Part III: Inspection and Test
Material Segregation
There are two primary situations that demand disposition of nonconforming
products. The first is when a product fails to pass inspection or test and a decision
regarding it must be made. This is the function of the material review board
(MRB). The second situation, considerably more serious, is when a problem develops
after the product is out of the plant, on store shelves, in dealer showrooms, and
in use by customers. Now a product recall may be required. In view of the very
negative aspects of product recall, all the prior work concerning product traceability
and product integrity will pay off quite handsomely in organizing the recall.
Material Review Board (MRB)
Part III.C.6
The material review board (MRB) is an appointed group of individuals with different
backgrounds and expertise. Their assignment is to determine what corrective
actions must be taken after nonconforming parts or components are discovered.
In a larger sense, the purposes of the MRB are to determine the disposition of nonconforming
parts, components, and subassemblies, determine the causes of the
nonconformance of these items, and take the necessary corrective actions to prevent
such nonconformance from taking place in future production.
The basic functions of a material review board are to: a) review material that
does not conform to standard, b) determine what its disposition should be, and
c) drive the development of effective corrective action to prevent recurrence. The
MRB is a broad-based reviewing agency whose membership usually consists minimally
of representatives from the following:
• Engineering. The cognizant designer is often the representative.
• Quality assurance. The representative is often from quality control
engineering.
• Customers. The representative may be from the customer’s
organization, for example, the government inspector or from
marketing. In some companies, the role of the material review board
is solely one of judging fitness for use of nonconforming products.
Bond (1983) discusses board composition, philosophy, and problem
documentation.
In general, the MRB procedural steps can be summarized as follows: After a defect
is discovered, verification by inspection may be needed. A complete description
of any nonconformance is then initiated. A quality engineer picked by the MRB
will review the facts and include the case in an appropriate tracking system. The
MRB committee may then follow up with investigation and analysis. When done,
the quality engineer takes the case again, recommending the appropriate corrective
action(s) and steps for implementation. The term standard repair is common
within the MRB framework. It signifies a situation where a certain type of
defect(s) occurs time and time again. A “standard repair” procedure is then initiated,
documented, and implemented for such situations. Minor defects are most
likely to be treated with a standard repair procedure.