During audit I found that delivery schedule are not followed. All premium freights are monitored,root cause is known, costs are calculated but there's no evidence and records that root causes for premium freights are reviewed.
Should I consider that as nonconformance. If affirmative, is that major or minor nonconformance.

By the way, I'd like to ask about clause 7.5.5. and 7.5.5.1. interpretation.
If it's necessary to identified obsolete product. Please give me an answer if it's non-conformance when organzation cant defined obsolete products.

My last question is connected with evaluation of condition of product in stock. Does anybody can give me clear explanation regarding this clause (I mean if that clause is connected only wit enviromental condition or NOT)

Thanks in advance for help

Michał

During audit I found that delivery schedule are not followed. All premium freights are monitored,root cause is known, costs are calculated but there's no evidence and records that root causes for premium freights are reviewed.
Should I consider that as nonconformance. If affirmative, is that major or minor nonconformance.

By the way, I'd like to ask about clause 7.5.5. and 7.5.5.1. interpretation.
If it's necessary to identified obsolete product. Please give me an answer if it's non-conformance when organzation cant defined obsolete products.

My last question is connected with evaluation of condition of product in stock. Does anybody can give me clear explanation regarding this clause (I mean if that clause is connected only wit enviromental condition or NOT)

Thanks in advance for help

Michał

A nonconformance, often called a problem, discrepancy, anomaly, fault, or error, is any failure to meet its requirements or standards.

100 % Delivery is not a standard but an objective for continuous improvement. If you do not meet this objective, you have to come up with the Corrective Action and Preventive Action to bring this objective back on track.

I can't answer all of your questions but I will try to shed some light on the first part. It depends on what your objectives are. If you set an objective to achieve 100% 'on time delivery' then you have not met your objective so technically, it could be a nonconformance.

However, I think that the real problem lies in the statement you make about not reviewing (analysing?) the results. This is the area where you are likely to get most benefit. Please remember that we raise N/C's to cause improvement to happen, not to punish.

As for major or minor, it depends if there is a system there or not and if there is, how often is it breaking down. If this is an internal audit, why bother grading it at all? What will you do differently depending on the grade? Usually just resolve it more promptly.

If I remember rightly TS16949 does 'insist' on 100% on time delivery, and does dictate that corrective action must be taken if this is failed to be achieved (the old QS9000 certainly used to dictate this).

If no corrective action plan is in place then yes this would be a non-conformance, I guess major or minor would depend on the level of performance, but I dont like such subjectivity in classification of findings, so i would personally stop at the fact that it is a non-conformance.

I do not find that TS 16949 prescribes 100% on-time delivery, but the standard does refer to delivery several times: based on identifying and adhering to plans for realizing customer satisfaction where delivery is involved.

7.4.3.2 does prescribe the monitoring of supplier performance, including delivery schedule performance.

8.2.1.1 (Customer satisfaction — Supplemental) does prescribe that customer satisfaction with the organization is monitored, including delivery schedule performance (including incidents of premium freight), and customer notifications related to quality or delivery issues. If your customer requires 100% on-time delivery, it's a valid reason to require it of yourself. Otherwise I really must question this requirement--seems more appropriate to be an objective.

The standard also requires resolution of nonconformances based on the standard's requirements, and your organization's system and process requirements. If you find that schedules aren't being followed and procedures/policy/system specifically say the schedules will be followed, IMO that is a minor NC unless the schedules are systematically not being followed. Then the issue can be argued is a major one.

If I remember rightly TS16949 does 'insist' on 100% on time delivery, and does dictate that corrective action must be taken if this is failed to be achieved (the old QS9000 certainly used to dictate this).

If no corrective action plan is in place then yes this would be a non-conformance, I guess major or minor would depend on the level of performance, but I dont like such subjectivity in classification of findings, so i would personally stop at the fact that it is a non-conformance.


TS softened the ridgid language that QS-9000 had used. If there is monitoring, and appropriate reaction to the issue, I generally do not write a nonconformity. If it is severe, I would also expect formal corrective action.

During audit I found that delivery schedule are not followed. All premium freights are monitored,root cause is known, costs are calculated but there's no evidence and records that root causes for premium freights are reviewed.
Should I consider that as nonconformance. If affirmative, is that major or minor nonconformance.

Michał

Nowhere is it required to deliver 100% therefore no, it is not a nonconformance.

However, since the ultimate goal is to continuously improve yet you have found evidence that it is not reviewed (and therfore no actions taken to continuously improve) then you you should file a NC on that aspect.

As for major/minor...heres my take. I tend not to focus on the degree of nonconformity. Whether its "major" or "minor" it's still nonconforming to the standard and therefore action must be taken. I've never understood how one type could be of less importance if it still nonconforms. :2cents:

TS softened the ridgid language that QS-9000 had used. If there is monitoring, and appropriate reaction to the issue, I generally do not write a nonconformity. If it is severe, I would also expect formal corrective action.

The key to any audit NC, imo, is whether or not there is evidence of systemic breakdown, which could be described as evidence that the process in question is not working as designed. If, for instance, there are cases of costs for premium shipping that result from unforeseen circumstances--power outages, trucks driving off of cliffs, etc.--then there is probably no evidence that the system is at fault. On the other hand, if there are multiple instances of overnight shipping that result from having made unrealistic promises, or process bottlenecks that haven't been remedied but could be, then there might be cause for an NC.

In this view of things, all NCs are major. The major/minor thing has never made any sense to me. If the process ain't working as designed, it needs to be fixed. Random noise should never be considered a reason to issue a finding.