Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
  • Reliability.fm
    • Speaking Of Reliability
    • Rooted in Reliability: The Plant Performance Podcast
    • Quality during Design
    • Way of the Quality Warrior
    • Critical Talks
    • Dare to Know
    • Maintenance Disrupted
    • Metal Conversations
    • The Leadership Connection
    • Practical Reliability Podcast
    • Reliability Matters
    • Reliability it Matters
    • Maintenance Mavericks Podcast
    • Women in Maintenance
    • Accendo Reliability Webinar Series
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • AI & Predictive Maintenance
      • Asset Management in the Mining Industry
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • RCM Blitz®
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The People Side of Maintenance
      • The Reliability Mindset
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • R for Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinars
    • Journals
    • Higher Education
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • 14 Ways to Acquire Reliability Engineering Knowledge
    • Reliability Analysis Methods online course
    • Measurement System Assessment
    • SPC-Process Capability Course
    • Design of Experiments
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Quality during Design Journey
    • Reliability Engineering Statistics
    • Quality Engineering Statistics
    • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
    • Reliability Engineering for Heavy Industry
    • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
    • Process Capability Analysis course
    • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
    • Return on Investment online course
    • CRE Preparation Online Course
    • Quondam Courses
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Live Events
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home

by Tim Rodgers Leave a Comment

The Battle Over Discrepant Material

The Battle Over Discrepant Material

Quality issues have been on my mind a lot lately, specifically some of the more frustrating things that I’ve had to deal with during my career as a quality manager.

In my last job, my team was responsible for managing the discrepant material review (DMR) process for our US-based factory.

The DMR process

For those who are unfamiliar, the DMR process is how most factories deal with raw materials or other inputs that have been identified as possibly defective and unsuitable for use.

Incoming materials that don’t pass visual inspection or other testing are supposed to be sequestered so they can’t go into production.

Later, the DMR process is used to determine what to do with that material. The choices are usually:

  • Accept the material (use it in production) because on closer examination it’s not defective after all, or the defect isn’t serious enough to prevent it from being used. There’s a risk to this choice, but maybe the risk of shutting down the factory because of insufficient material, or otherwise missing a production quota is greater.
  • Rework or repair the material, then use it. Obviously, this option is limited to fairly minor defects that can be quickly addressed at the factory and assumes that the folks at the factory can make it usable.
  • Reject the material and return it to the supplier. Assuming the material wasn’t damaged after transfer of title, the supplier is obligated to take responsibility for defects. At that point, there may be some disagreement with the supplier about whether this really is a defect. Ultimately there’s a discussion about full replacement vs. rework of the defective material at the supplier.
  • Scrap it. This is a bad choice, but it basically means it’s not worth the time to repair it or return it to the supplier. Of course, this means additional expense, both to dispose of the defective material and to order and purchase replacement material.

The problem with our DMR process was that it was impossible to make an objective judgment.

All of the functional groups and stakeholders were biased toward one option or another, and the quality team had no power to make the final call or enforce a decision.

The operations folks were usually willing to take a risk with marginally-acceptable material so they wouldn’t slow down production. The procurement folks didn’t want the hassle of returning material to suppliers. Our VP didn’t want to approve the expenses associated with scrap material and basically made it impossible to do so.

The quality team mainly just wanted to be sure the material wasn’t used as-is, and that the supplier implemented some kind of corrective action to prevent future occurrences of the same defect. Unfortunately, we didn’t have the power, or credibility, or respect, or something to get the rest of the organization to support our position.

What typically happened was that either the operations folks used the DMR material, convincing themselves that the defects were minor, or the DMR material piled up in a corner of the receiving area, waiting for somebody to blink.

It got to the point that we were actually considering paying for off-site storage space for this stuff.

I think there are a lot of lessons here, but here are a few:

  • Don’t bother setting up a DMR process if you’re not prepared to actually deal with discrepant material and its causes. How bad does the material have to be before it’s returned or scrapped? Are you going to accept everything?
  • Quality isn’t absolute. What was a defect yesterday may be acceptable today, especially if the factory is running behind the production schedule. Maybe the customer won’t notice. If they do notice, remember that I told you so.
  • If you’re not going to hold your suppliers accountable for quality, then stop pretending that quality is a consideration in selecting suppliers or ordering material.

This wasn’t the way it was supposed to be, but that’s how the DMR process was managed in this business.

I suspect other businesses have similar problems because they’re willing to trade a possibility of failure for expediency and “expense control.”


Related:

Material Selection and Reliability (article)

Purpose of a Reliability Program (article)

Subcontracting Quality (article)

 

Filed Under: Articles, Managing in the 2000s, on Leadership & Career

About Tim Rodgers

I'm a director-level global operations manager experienced in leading hardware engineering and new product development teams, project & program management (PMP certification), quality engineering (Six Sigma Black Belt), and international manufacturing and supply chain management for consumer electronics and industrial markets.

I graduated from the University of California (Santa Cruz) with a Ph.D. in chemistry, and later received an MBA from the University of Oregon. I've been employed by large aerospace and consumer electronics companies, and spent two years in China while working for the world's largest contract manufacturer. I'm currently teaching supply chain management and operations management at the University of Colorado (Boulder) and Colorado State University.

« Understanding Reliability Across an Industry
Quantify the Improvements (or Gaps) In Your Reliability »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Articles by Tim Rodgers

Join Accendo

Receive information and updates about articles and many other resources offered by Accendo Reliability by becoming a member.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Join Today

Recent Articles

  • test
  • test
  • test
  • Your Most Important Business Equation
  • Your Suppliers Can Be a Risk to Your Project

© 2025 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy