Re: How to categorize Minor, Major or Observation for Internal Audit NCR?
Why do you want to categorise them major/minor? I can see the benefit of differentiating between N/C and observation not major/minor.
If you do use major and minor N/C's, what do you expect people to do different when they address them? The only thing I can see is the timescale by which they are resolved - which should always be on any corrective action anyway. By not categorising you avoid the problems of people spending longer worrying over the grade rather than the content of the N/C; you avoid auditors 'glorifying' the fact they have raised a major; you avoid 'tit for tat' grading of majors; etc.
I raise N/C's to get things changed where they need to be changed, if they are more serious we reduce the time allowed to put in place the changes.
I believe we've had this discussion before but as I have donned my ISO 9001/14001 auditing hat again to help a site out - not a Corporate gal for the next few hours at least
- I'm going to jump in with my thoughts.
Why differentiate? Because of the value-added approach to problem-solving.
In my production experience, we treat a "minor" with a correction. We log it. We acknowledge it. But it's a small little hiccup in the grand scheme of things. Root cause analysis is NOT required for a hiccup. We simply wish to get rid of the annoyance....I mean, nonconformance.
I guess this would be aligned with the "observation". However, observation implies "Hey, we found something, but you don't necessarily need to do anything about." And that, to be honest, is typically unacceptable within my organization. An observation says that there is some nonconformance against requirements, does it not?
A major, on the other hand, is big issue. It implies high (potential of) risk and/or loss. It is a systematic issue and we want to get rid of it for our own sanity and the health of the management system.
An Opportunity for Improvement is for those cases where requirements are conformed to, however there is the potential to improve the process/practice/results. It is optional to implement.
When we do system audits in my company, we may note "minors" on individual processes, and we inform the area before we leave of the situation. However, at each team caucus meeting - held at the end of each day - we discuss what was found and if there are multiple minors against a particular requirement (e.g., lots of documents found to be out-of-date, unapproved but used, etc.), we'll issue a major against document control.
To summarize, why classify Minor or Major?...to ensure we take a value-added approach to treating the nonconformance.
It works for us.
Whether or not it works for others....well, I did have the local ASQ chapter president ask me to speak at a meeting on our method...