Approving a material for the next production step requires a defensible comparison between its evaluated characteristics and the stated requirements for that step. The American Society for Quality lists prototyping and laboratory or validation testing of supplier samples as evaluation methods. It also recommends requesting quotations against specifications and other requirements, including testing.
What does the approval decision need to establish?
The central question is whether the evidence covers the material’s intended quality characteristics. ASQ defines nonconformity as a departure of a quality characteristic from its intended level or state. A material therefore should not be approved merely because it is available or has been supplied; the approval decision must address the requirements against which it will be used.
Three elements should be aligned:
- The intended quality characteristics. Identify the condition or level the material is expected to meet.
- The stated specifications and testing requirements. Use the same requirement set when requesting a quotation and evaluating the sample.
- The evaluation evidence. Determine whether prototyping, laboratory testing, validation testing, or another applicable method provides evidence relevant to the proposed next step.
These elements form the basis of the approval decision. They do not replace the reader’s own project specifications or an authorised internal decision.
How should the material be checked?
A practical review can follow this sequence:
| Check | Evidence to examine | Decision question |
|---|---|---|
| Intended state | The stated quality characteristic | What level or state has been specified? |
| Requirement basis | Specifications and testing requirements provided to the supplier | Will the quotation and sample be assessed against the same conditions? |
| Evaluation method | Prototyping, laboratory testing, or validation testing of the supplier sample | Does the evidence address the requirements for the next step? |
| Observed departures | Differences between the evaluated characteristics and their intended levels or states | Which departures remain unresolved? |
| Approval status | The available evaluation results and any unresolved departures | Is there sufficient evidence to approve progression? |
This sequence helps prevent a quotation, a sample, and a production decision from being treated as equivalent forms of evidence. A quotation records a request under stated requirements; testing evaluates a sample. Approval must connect the resulting evidence back to the intended material.
Which testing evidence should be used?
ASQ identifies prototyping, laboratory testing, and validation testing as evaluation methods for supplier samples. The relevant method depends on the stated requirements and the decision being made. One method should not be assumed to answer every question associated with a different material characteristic or production stage.
The review should therefore establish what was tested, which requirements the evaluation was intended to address, and how the observed results relate to the intended levels or states. Where the evidence does not resolve a requirement, the approval remains unconfirmed.
What must the reader still confirm?
The cited guidance does not establish a universal pass/fail threshold, a single test sequence, or a universal approval rule for every material. Before recording approval, the reader still needs to confirm:
- the exact specifications and intended quality characteristics for the material;
- the testing requirements that apply to the next production step;
- whether the evaluation evidence addresses those requirements;
- whether any departure from an intended level or state remains unresolved; and
- who is authorised to accept the evidence or approve progression within the relevant operation.
The approval should state the requirement basis, the evaluation evidence considered, and any unresolved departures. If those items cannot be confirmed, the material is not yet supported for the next production step.