We occasionally find parts during production that don't meet the required specifications. Some can be reworked, while others may need to be scrapped, and deciding what to do isn't always straightforward.

I'm interested in how other manufacturers handle these situations. Do you have a formal Material Review Board (MRB) process, or does your quality team make these decisions individually? How do you balance production costs with quality requirements?

I came across this article while researching the subject: https://theindustrialist.net/what-is-mrb-in-manufacturing/

I'd appreciate hearing how you handle nonconforming parts in practice.

 

The article provides a pretty good overview of the MRB process. One thing I'd add is that even a small manufacturer can benefit from a formal review process without having to establish a large committee.

I'd start with a simple approval matrix defining which nonconformances quality or production can disposition and which require engineering approval. Routine rework that restores a part to its original specification is quite different from accepting a part that doesn't meet the design requirements.

In control panel manufacturing, for example, I'd be particularly careful about deviations involving electrical ratings, protective devices, grounding, or safety-related components. Even if something appears to work, that doesn't necessarily mean it's acceptable.

I also think the real long-term value comes from tracking recurring defects. The individual disposition solves today's problem, but identifying why the same nonconformance keeps happening can prevent a much larger problem down the road.