Team,

If you are auditing and find several groups that are supposed to accomplish the same thing such as processing of certificates of conformance. One group does it manually while another has them sent electronically from the supplier. Each process is effective however the manual process is not so efficient, would this be a finding and if so what clause would you use in ISO 9001 2000?

Basically the majority of the company I work for is siloed where there are different or redundant processes that are supposed to accomplish the same thing and I want to try to use audits to suggest streamlining and creating process consistency. What part of the ISO standard should I leverage and do you have any tips for communicating this in a way non-quality management would understand it?

Hi Jim,

I would think that as long as a C of C is generated and provided to the party requesting it, either way would be acceptable.

As for the two areas doing it differently (electronically vs. manually), I don't think there is anything in the ISO 9001 standard that you could use for leverage in writing a NC with one method being better than the other, unless it would be against the improvement section, 8.5.1. In fact, I am inclined to think that the most this could be is an OFI. Perhaps others disagree - if so, I'm sure they will say so. :notme:

Of course, if your company procedures specify how a C of C should be generated and issued, then you could write a NC using the procedure as the standard.

I hope this helps and hasn't muddied the waters. :o

Team,

If you are auditing and find several groups that are supposed to accomplish the same thing such as processing of certificates of conformance. One group does it manually while another has them sent electronically from the supplier. Each process is effective however the manual process is not so efficient, would this be a finding and if so what clause would you use in ISO 9001 2000?


First, if you find it necessary to cite an ISO clause for an internal audit finding, it probably means that your own system documentation and requirements haven't addressed the salient issues. In principle, it should be possible to conduct IAs without ever citing an ISO clause.

As far as this particular instance is concerned, it's a good OFI, or observation, but not a "nonconformity" in the ISO sense of the term.

I'd consider generating an Opportunity for Improvement regarding the usage of internal resources and the streamlining opportunities. No need to point fingers at which one is less efficient or effective than the other.

:modcop: Moderator Note:D:

I edited the title to provide more details, and hence, better input on subject. If there is anything wrong, or another title is desired, please feel free to contact me or any moderator. :)

Added edit: My previous title was not very accurate. Thanks to Jim Wynne for suggesting better title

OK thanks for the replies. Our own quality manual doesn't really address efficiency very well. But from a cost standpoint we seem to many redundant systems, that work for the local group but overall are not systemic.:)

after our recent audit the auditor cited this non-conformance: " THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT TRAINING OF INTERNAL AUDITORS IS BEING EVALUATED TO PROVIDE FOR EFFECTIVENESS OF TRAINING" how do i fix this?

after our recent audit the auditor cited this non-conformance: " THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT TRAINING OF INTERNAL AUDITORS IS BEING EVALUATED TO PROVIDE FOR EFFECTIVENESS OF TRAINING" how do i fix this?

1. Test information retention.
2. Observe the audit process to determine competency.
3. Document results.

Stijloor.