Can anyone tell me where in the ISO9001:2000 documents a definition for a Major Noncompliance and a Minor Noncompliance can be found?

I am developing an auditor training presentation and am looking for the official ISO interpretation of these two terms.

:bonk:

Thanks!

Can anyone tell me where in the ISO9001:2000 documents a definition for a Major Noncompliance and a Minor Noncompliance can be found?

I am developing an auditor training presentation and am looking for the official ISO interpretation of these two terms.There is no "ISO" definition of minor or majors. Not even ISO 19011 has it. Categorization of nonconformities is not mandatory. Unless dictated by documents defining it for certain Schemes. For example, AS9104 defines it for the Aerospace Scheme.

Check ANAB Advisory # 23. Identifying and Documenting Nonconformities During Management Systems Audits (http://www.anab.org/HTMLFiles/docs/Advisory/adv23.pdf)

Categorization of nonconformities is not mandatory. Exactly.

This subject keeps coming up. I suggest a look in the following old threads:

Internal Audit Findings - Major vs. Minor Finding - Defining the differences (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4458&highlight=minor+major+definition)
Definition and Differences: Internal Audit Major vs. Minor Nonconformance (Finding) (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=2402)
Difference and Definition: Major vs. Minor Nonconformance (Finding) (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=7881)

/Claes

If a registrar finding does not put my company on "probation", then we label it internally as a "minor"!!! :lol:

Can anyone tell me where in the ISO9001:2000 documents a definition for a Major Noncompliance and a Minor Noncompliance can be found?

I am developing an auditor training presentation and am looking for the official ISO interpretation of these two terms.

:bonk:

Thanks!

Furthermore, if you are developing internal auditor training, I'd suggest that you shouldn't even be talking about this subject. It isn't correct to 'grade' internal audit findings (I know, we've been there before on many threads), because the technique is an external audit issue, to justify why auditors are making their recommendations, like for certification, use as a qualified supplier etc. These recommendations have little use in an internal audit. The content of the findings should justify whether it's a 'big deal' or not.........and let's be clear it's only a big deal if management see it that way too........

Andy

No. Theres nothing called "major" or minor". ISO 9001 or ISO 19011 dont define any such things. Sydney has given a reference to what ANAB says. Most of the Accrditation Boards have advised their registrars to stop using these terms. Even if used, both mean "NC".

Either there is an NC or there is no NC. The auditor is advised to exercise extreme prudence while stamping any observation as an NC.

Stated in simple words, Any observation is marked as an NC only when it indicates a breakdown of the QMS or indication of a possible breakdown in the QMS. Personal errors, one time mistakes dont get an NC if rest of the system is functioning OK. Such things are variously reported as "observations" or "opportunity for improvement" or in similar words.

For most external auditors today, any NC means a reaudit to review closure before a certification is recomended, and a suspension / withdrawal if already certified.

Internally, you are free to define your own parameters and action plans on them. But these tend to become highly subjective, so it is advised to keep it black and white (not that this wont be subjective:D ). NC or no NC. Severe action if there is an NC, check during next audit if there is no NC.

Your choice.

There are some references to classification from my CQA primer, mainly focused around the risk level, or frequent recurrence.

What about ANSI/ISO/ASQ QE19011S-2004? Is there anything there?

ANSI/ISO/ASQ QE19011S-2004 does not define Major or Minor Non-conformances.

Thanks Jeff for checking.

I saw that reference in my audit book, but didn't know if there was any reference. The primer had some references for auditing books, but not standard references that I saw.

I think Sydney's post says it all. The highest folks on the ladder don't care whether you have it broken down or not. In any case its not a requirement, just don't get carried away and start to disposition your findings a grade lower to an observation (which is what our registrar does all the time!). But it works out well for both of us :notme: I don't know why our bigger customers (sony, ibm etc) haven't complained but I think everyone knows that supplier audits never go any further than the company they are auditing.:cool: