AS9100 does not prescribe one universal review frequency such as monthly or annually for the non-conformance process itself.
The practical answer is that non-conformance processes should be reviewed at planned intervals and also when events indicate the process may no longer be effective. In most organizations, that means a combination of:
scheduled internal audit coverage
management review inputs and trend analysis
routine monitoring of NCR volume, aging, recurrence, rework, scrap, escapes, and closure timeliness
additional review after major escapes, repeat findings, customer complaints, audit findings, supplier issues, or significant process changes
If you are asking for a calendar rule, many companies review the process formally at least annually through the audit and management review cycle, with more frequent operational review monthly or quarterly. But that is a common practice, not an AS9100-mandated interval.
What matters is not picking an arbitrary cadence. What matters is being able to show that the process is controlled, effective, and improved when needed. A weak annual review can be less useful than a disciplined monthly metric review plus targeted audits.
You should expect a higher review frequency when:
non-conformance volume is high or rising
the same defect types keep recurring
product risk is high
customer or regulatory scrutiny is elevated
there have been recent process, routing, supplier, software, or equipment changes
closure backlog or MRB cycle time is degrading
You may justify a less frequent formal review when the process is stable, data is reliable, corrective actions are effective, and trend performance shows sustained control. Even then, periodic verification is still expected.
A useful review usually checks more than procedure existence. It should test whether the process is actually working across operations, quality, and supporting systems. Typical review points include:
timeliness of identification, segregation, disposition, and closure
traceability from defect to disposition to rework, scrap, concession, or corrective action
repeat non-conformances by part, operation, supplier, or work center
linkage between NCRs and corrective action where escalation is warranted
effectiveness of containment and recurrence prevention
record completeness, approval controls, and audit trail quality
training adherence and use of current instructions
In regulated and long-lifecycle environments, review quality depends heavily on data readiness and change control. If NCR data is split across paper forms, MES, ERP, QMS, and email, your nominal review frequency may look acceptable while actual visibility is poor.
In many plants, non-conformance handling spans legacy QMS tools, ERP transactions, spreadsheets, and local workarounds. That affects how often you can review the process meaningfully. More frequent review is often needed when integration is weak, because manual handoffs create delay, duplicate records, and inconsistent status.
Full replacement of the stack is often not the practical answer. In regulated aerospace and similar environments, replacement programs can fail because of validation effort, qualification burden, downtime risk, retraining overhead, and integration complexity with existing MES, ERP, PLM, and document control systems. In many cases, a better near-term approach is to tighten review cadence, improve evidence trails, and close the worst data gaps first.
Review the non-conformance process as often as needed to demonstrate effectiveness and control, with at least a planned periodic review in your audit and management review system, and additional review triggered by risk, trends, escapes, or change. If your procedure says annual but your defect patterns, backlog, or recurrence risk justify quarterly or monthly review, the more frequent cadence is usually the defensible one.
Whether you're managing 1 site or 100, C-981 adapts to your environment and scales with your needs—without the complexity of traditional systems.
