One of the weakness of non-conformances is the poor writing. Some one could give me recommendation in order to be clear and specific how a found find is a non-conformance?
thanks

Welcome to the Cove:bigwave:

It's really very simple if we think of what is necessary.

1st you have to have a requirement (What should be happening or be done)

2nd you have to have evidence of non-fullfilment of the requirement (What wasn't done or what didn't happen)

Requirements can be specific to ISO 14001.....like a control method for system documentation (document control procedure required by 4.4.5), or requirements can be specific to the management system the organization has defined (such as "all procedures will be documented"). Remember, these are jut some simple basic examples.

Then the evidence of non-fullfilment could be a lack of a document control procedure or a procedure that was not documented.

Then all you do is record the requirement and record the non-conformance in whatever your prescribed format is.

Good advice from Randy. :agree:

You need to tell them what you want. How have you described to people the expected manner of writing nonconformances? You can have a non-controlled procedure or piece of guidance for this type of technical writing. I find that is important as writing things like nonconformances does not occur to us naturally and schools often don't teach this skill well, if at all.

The second trhings that occurred to me is that nonconformances are not well understood or perhaps not taken very seriously. Providing guidance or even rules for something as important as nonconformances may help your people by forcing them to identify why the problem is important enough to bring up this kind of official attention.

The ad-hoc ISO Auditing Practices Group has a specific paper on that:
Documenting a Nonconformity (http://isotc.iso.ch/livelink/livelink.exe/3636882/APG-DocumentNonconformity.doc?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=3636882)

When I teach Lead Auditor Classes, one of the tips I offer is for auditors to start the statement of the nonconformity with the words "Contrary to".
By doing so, the auditor forces him/herself to identify the requirement being violated.

For example: "Contrary to ISO 15189:2003, clause 4.8, Bongo-Bongo Labs does not have procedures in place for the resolution of customer complaints."

Thanks Sidney. I appreciate your support and if you have additional examples, please send me.

Regards,

Marilú (Peru)

Some great advice in the previous replies. I also present a lot of auditor courses, both internal and lead, and I spend a lot of time getting them to practice writing NC's.

I usually start with the requirement (i.e. the clause of the standard for external audits or paragraph of their own procedure for internal audits) and I like to make this as specific as possible e.g. if there are missing training records, 6.2.2 e), not just 6.2.

Next comes the statement of FACT, not opinion. Making sure not to imply everything is wrong when we mean we have found some examples e.g. 'not all purchase orders were authorised before release' rather than 'purchase orders were not authorised before release'. The latter implies that none of them were authorised and this may not be the case.

We should also avoid personalising NC's such as 'the purchasing manager did not authorise purchase orders before release'. Raise NC's against the system, not the person.

Followed by the objective evidence to support the statement of fact - e.g. Purchase orders 123, 124 & 127.

You may also want to put the scale of the problem too e.g. 20 PO's checked, 10 found not signed.

I usually start with the requirement (i.e. the clause of the standard for external audits or paragraph of their own procedure for internal audits) and I like to make this as specific as possible e.g. if there are missing training records, 6.2.2 e), not just 6.2.

Next comes the statement of FACT, not opinion. Making sure not to imply everything is wrong when we mean we have found some examples e.g. 'not all purchase orders were authorised before release' rather than 'purchase orders were not authorised before release'. The latter implies that none of them were authorised and this may not be the case.

We should also avoid personalising NC's such as 'the purchasing manager did not authorise purchase orders before release'. Raise NC's against the system, not the person.

Followed by the objective evidence to support the statement of fact - e.g. Purchase orders 123, 124 & 127.

You may also want to put the scale of the problem too e.g. 20 PO's checked, 10 found not signed.

Excellent advice, but for the sake of brevity and conciseness, I would include everything in a single statement, following on Sidney's advice:
Contrary to [specific requirement], not all purchase orders are approved prior to release. 20 POs were examined, and 123, 124 and 127 showed no evidence of the required approval.

I think the title of this thread is misleading and is a reflection of the problem. Nothing wrong with the non-conformance system. It's the lack of skill/ability on the part of the person writing or recording the NC. A good internal audit training should address that.

I think the title of this thread is misleading and is a reflection of the problem. Nothing wrong with the non-conformance system. It's the lack of skill/ability on the part of the person writing or recording the NC. A good internal audit training should address that.


Not entirely correct, training will only provide the how and what. Ability to do it well comes by experience (that's part of being a competent auditor).

Training is not the end, it's the beginning.

Not entirely correct, training will only provide the how and what. Ability to do it well comes by experience (that's part of being a competent auditor).

Training is not the end, it's the beginning.

Agree. During training, one can be coached on the method to record an NC. But knowing how to write or structure an NC does not equate to ability or competency to carry out audit.

Just wonder how those that worked for small organizations which carried out audit once a year gained experience in auditing. Before the next audit comes along, they may had forgotten about all the audit trainings taken.

Best solution is to join the 'cove'. Learn through others!

Just wonder how those that worked for small organizations which carried out audit once a year gained experience in auditing. Before the next audit comes along, they may had forgotten about all the audit trainings taken.

Spot on Harry. I visit a lot of small companies and their auditing is pretty poor in many cases. Of course, many use a consultant to get them through the need to do audits but they get little or no benefit from them because they treat it as something which is a necessary evil.

Still, if nothing else, it helps them to keep their procedures up to date.