Dispositions such as use-as-is or scrap should be approved by the roles your quality system formally designates, not by whoever discovers the issue or owns the schedule.
In practice, that usually means quality has authority over the nonconformance workflow, while engineering or an MRB-equivalent authority is required when the disposition could affect design intent, fit, form, function, reliability, interchangeability, certification basis, or contractual requirements. Scrap is often simpler than use-as-is, but it still should not be informal. Even scrap decisions may need review when the part is serialized, customer-furnished, under deviation, already tied to a work order, or relevant to traceability and cost reporting.
Use-as-is: Usually requires formal review by authorized quality and engineering personnel, or a defined MRB authority, because you are accepting a known deviation from requirements.
Scrap: Often can be approved by quality under a controlled procedure, but many organizations require additional review for high-value, serialized, safety-critical, customer-owned, or regulated material.
Rework or repair: Commonly needs engineering involvement if instructions are not already preapproved in controlled documentation.
Return to vendor: Usually requires coordination between quality, procurement, and receiving or supplier quality, depending on ownership and supplier controls.
The exact answer depends on your documented authorities, customer flow-downs, product criticality, and whether approved disposition paths already exist in controlled procedures. If your process says only MRB can approve use-as-is, then production supervision cannot override that because the line is behind schedule.
Operators or supervisors making disposition calls outside approved authority.
Engineering giving informal approvals by email or chat without controlled record linkage.
Scrapping material in inventory without updating ERP, MES, and quality records consistently.
Using use-as-is as a shortcut when the actual need is a deviation, concession, or customer approval.
Those shortcuts create audit trail gaps, inventory errors, and evidence problems later. In regulated plants, the issue is not only who agreed, but whether the approval is traceable, current, and executed under change control.
In brownfield environments, disposition approval is often split across QMS, ERP, MES, and sometimes PLM. That is workable, but only if roles, status changes, and record ownership are clear. If quality approves a scrap in the NCR system but ERP inventory is not relieved, or MES still allows the part to move, the control failed even if the decision was technically correct.
For that reason, approval design should account for:
role-based permissions and delegation rules
electronic signatures or equivalent controlled approvals where required by procedure
links between the nonconformance record and inventory, traveler, batch, serial, or lot records
segregation of duties so the same person is not detecting, approving, and dispositioning everything without oversight
validation of workflow behavior if systems are configured to enforce approval paths
Full replacement of existing quality and execution systems is often not the right answer. In long-lifecycle regulated operations, replacing NCR, ERP, MES, and PLM workflows can trigger qualification burden, validation work, integration rework, downtime risk, and retraining costs that outweigh the benefit. More often, plants tighten role governance and evidence trails across the systems they already have.
So the practical answer is: approve dispositions through the authority defined in your QMS, with quality-led control and engineering or MRB involvement when requirements could be affected. If that authority is not explicitly documented, that is a process gap that should be closed before relying on the workflow.
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.
