Effective Date: March 12, 2021
Expiration Date: March 12, 2026
|| TOC | ChangeHistory | Preface | Chapter1 | Chapter2 | Chapter3 | Chapter4 | Chapter5 | Chapter6 | Chapter7 | Chapter8 | AppendixA | AppendixB | AppendixC | AppendixD | AppendixE | AppendixF | AppendixG | ALL ||
E.1 This Appendix provides recommended MRB process elements that may be used by Programs and Projects and flowed to their external suppliers.
a. Categories (e.g., Major, Minor, Level 1, Level II)
(1) Categories of Nonconformances. Categories such as Minor or Major can be established and used to screen nonconformances to determine which meet the standard of significant per 6.3.1.b above. This screening process can be used to apply a resolution path that bypasses the MRB process and adheres to alternative, documented processes. Examples of criteria that may be used to categorize a nonconformance as not warranting MRB review are:
(a) The item or process can be returned to a condition that complies with the requirements (i.e., drawing, specification, or procedure) using a standard, documented approach.
(b) The item can be repaired using a standard process returning the item to a qualified condition.
(c) It can be readily determined, or has been previously established, that scrapping and replacing the item is acceptable with respect to both programmatic and technical risk.
b. Categories for MRB Dispositions. Categories, such as Level I and Level II, may be used to describe the level of review, concurrence, approval, and reporting required by the program or project for different types of MRB dispositions depending on the remaining risk after MRB closure.
c. Review Board Membership. While the number of persons assembled in a review board is not prescribed, it is important that expertise in and/or knowledge of the areas defined in 6.3.1.e is represented. A failure to adequately understand the disposition path from these several perspectives heightens the likelihood of following a disposition path that, while driving down risk in one or two areas, increases risk to unacceptable levels in other areas.
d. Acquired and Delivered Review Board Records. Records associated with nonconformance review board activities are an element of acceptance data packages and provide the program or project the ability to research and evaluate mission risks, product and material traceability, and final hardware configuration. The following are data or record elements recommended for use in the Project QA Plan:
(1) Procurement or contract identification traceability.
(2) Initiator of the document.
(3) Dates of the initiation and of the closure.
(4) Identification of the document for traceability purposes.
(5) Unique item identifiers (e.g., part number, model name/number, serial number, design revision).
(6) Quantity of items involved.
(7) Number of occurrences.
(8) The place in the manufacturing process where the nonconformance was detected.
(9) A detailed description of the nonconformance.
(10) Identification of the affected specification, drawing or other document.
(11) Proximate cause(s).
(12) Root cause(s) when determined.
(13) Supporting evidence for determination of causes.
(14) The disposition (e.g., corrective action(s), rework, repair, use-as-is).
(15) Supporting rationale for the disposition.
(16) Identification of personnel responsible for making the disposition decision.
| TOC | ChangeHistory | Preface | Chapter1 | Chapter2 | Chapter3 | Chapter4 | Chapter5 | Chapter6 | Chapter7 | Chapter8 | AppendixA | AppendixB | AppendixC | AppendixD | AppendixE | AppendixF | AppendixG | ALL |
|| NODIS Library | Program Management(8000s) | Search ||
This document does not bind the public, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract. This document is uncontrolled when printed. Check the NASA Online Directives Information System (NODIS) Library to verify that this is the correct version before use: https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov.