Saw this. Any coments here?

From: "David Jenkins"
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Subject: Registrar comments

Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 20:09:51 GMT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: sn-us misc.industry.quality:16278

Just wondering if anyone else has observed this from an auditor on an ISO
9001:2000 registration audit?

They found one minor nonconformance and made a 'comment' on three other
issues. They are trying to insist that we respond to these 'comments' as
well as the nonconformance before confirming registration. On being
challenged as to whether these comments were really 'minor or
potential-minor nonconformances' they replied no - they were justs things
they would like to see changed: they could not point to non-complience with
the standard.

I've been through a fair number of ISO audits with our clients, but have
never run across this behavior before. Anyone else seen this?

David Jenkins
White Rock BC

Unfortunately, yes. One of the sites I use to be responsible for received a minor during the next audit because we didn't respond to the OFI. However, 1 incident out of all the audits in the past 6 years isn't a bad percentage.

:bonk:

I have never experienced this, and find it quite alarming.

However what you could do is document it in your CA system, conduct an investigation, come to the conclusion that you cannot identify that there is any non-compliance (which your auditor must agree with), and then close the CA with 'no-action'.

Unless of course you really want to go to war on it, in which case tell the guy to ............. off

Our Registrar does not require a response on Opportunity for Improvements. They are also not allowed to write an OFI during a registration. File a grievance with the registrar

All "observations" need some form of response, if only to say that nothing will be done. If that is what the registrar is looking for; evidence that you considered the observation, then great. If, on the other hand, the registrar is looking for you to “fix” the observation, then I would have an issue. If it requires “fixing” it should be a nonconformance, not an observation. If the situation is conforming, then not “fix” should be required.

Guess I can't say how kosher these opportunities for improvement and responses are, but here is what I have done in the past.

We have welcomed any and all observations pertaining to opportunities for improvement. We also let our registrar know that while we welcome them, we may not choose to do the exact things that the auditor is looking for, we will do what is best for us. Our registrar has never required a formal action plan for OFIs. We do (quality team members) sit down with the auditor prior to the closing meeting and discuss them. We may come up with a plan right there, or not. But at least the auditor knows we are aware, and will keep them in mind. Usually these improvement opportunities lead to the next surveillance audit, and they give us a chance to maybe take care of a potential problem before it happens. Obviously, if they were in nonconformance now, we'd get a finding. Usually it is just a feeling from the evidence collected in the current audit that there is a potential for nonconformance down the road.

I don't know, maybe we are pretty naive, but we like to partner with our registrar and keep everything pretty low-key and friendly.

I've seen this happen in two different situations

1) auditor "using" an improvement as a warning
(ie explaining that although it is wiitten as a "Suggestion" if nothing changes by the next visit - I'll find a way to write a nonconformance for it.....

2) Auditor Using improvement suggestins to "mold" the clients system to his viewpoint. Ie your system would be better in my opinion if you did this or that........


Of course the auditor that explains "this is what I think and you can take it and run with it OR ignore it completley is correct.

During our initial audit, our registrar found some OFIs. They included them in their report, but did not require a written response. We did have 3 minors written, and we had to respond to those before we received our certification.

CarolX

One additional thing I forgot, for some reason SteelMaiden's post reminded me of it. If an observation points to something that would be of benefit, then without a doubt follow-up, regardless of whether the registrar says you have to.

Two out of the three Registrars I have used required responses to Observations.

Both described it as being a warning about a future finding.

All of our auditors have included OFI's in their report but have not asked for a response.
Additionally, I have just completed reviewing 5 quotes for upgrade to TS and there was no mention of OFI's. However there was mention of an hourly charge for reviewing an excessive number of nonconformances.
There is no mention of the term OFI in the certification scheme for TS, so they may be on there way out.

I've been in this boat too! :)

Our registrar does not require formal responses to OFI's nor do they expect that all will be implemented. We have chosen to develop an internal response system to OFI's generated from our external and internal audits to make sure that they are not ignored (which was usually what happened). Under this system, it is OK to reject an OFI but there should be some rationale for doing so e.g., insufficient resources, ROI not sufficient, etc.

We have run into the situation noted by Jim Biz with a new auditor - an OFI that is expected to be addressed or it will be a finding next time! In my opinion, I'd rather have a nonconformance if it is expected to be implemented. In our case, we don't agree with the auditor so it is a hard sell to management even though I know we will have problems in the next surveillance audit. :frust:

If it was treated as a nonconformance, then the area management would have had to agree to it to sign off the audit or argue with the auditor and get agreement! (Note that our auditor does not think that we should argue our point of view - the standard is apparently black and white in her opinion
!) :rolleyes:

I have had several heated conversations with auditors about this type of issue. I too would like to see it written as a minor rather than a suggestion from them. If it truely is an issue then make it one offically. We want to improve our system and are looking for the auditor to help us piont to the areas that they see things. We treat them as a valued third party employee. We hire them to come in and help us look for areas to improve. I would be concerned if they wrote OFI and then required me to respond. If it requires response then write it as a minor. If not then inform us unoffically and we can address it if we feel it is good for business. The relationship we have with our auditor helps in this because everyone involved knows that we are taking the process seriously and we do actually want to improve, not just have a piece of paper that says we are certified.

one of the registrars I use sent me a note that required a response to an OBS, when I didn't send one....... but when questioned said...just ignore it, we use that same form for QS and they do require it for Qs,,,,, and most clerical follow up people just forget about that....doesn't that give you a warm fuzzy after recieving a nasty "where is it???" note.


As an auditor i use OBS for many things...
1 Identify a potential weak spot that may show evidence of NC next time but no hard evidence was seen that visit..heads up
2 Remind myself to look at something (progress) next visit, good or bad
3 Highlight a stregnth..kudos
4 A potential industry standard violiation that I may not have the history available to write it up against,,heads up, go find out if its a violiation or not
5 Opportunity for improvement

There have been posts that describe the pass/fail certification audit as a detriment to ISO Registration. If during the Certification Audit they discover "majors", they will come back, at additional expense, to verify CA. You keep going until you get it right. How is this considered Pass/Fail? You can't fail unless you fail to implement CA's. No?:bonk: :ko: :smokin: