The Elsmar Cove Wiki More Free Files The Elsmar Cove Forums Discussion Thread Index Post Attachments Listing Failure Modes Services and Solutions to Problems Elsmar cove Forums Main Page Elsmar Cove Home Page
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > Common Quality Assurance Processes and Tools > Nonconformance and Corrective Action
Forum Username


Search the Elsmar Cove
Custom Search
Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Follow Marc & Elsmar
Elsmar Cove Forum RSS Feed  Marc Smith's Google+ Page  Marc Smith's Linked In Page   Marc Smith's Elsmar Cove YouTube Page  Marc Smith's Facebook Page  Elsmar Cove Twitter Feed
Elsmar Cove Groups
Elsmar Cove Google+ Group  Elsmar Cove LinkedIn Group  Elsmar Cove Facebook Group
Sponsor Links





Donate and $ Contributor Forum Access

Click the graphic above.
Courtesy Quick Links

Links that Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge:

Howard's
International Quality Services
Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting
Bob Doering's
Correct SPC - Precision Machining

NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook
IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors
SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers
Quality Digest Portal
IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology
ASQ - American Society for Quality
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #1  
Old 9th May 2001, 11:08 AM
Q rex
Unregistered Guest

 
 
Posts: n/a
Nonconformance and nonconformity

My firm's QMS has, for those offices registered, not yet migrated to the 2K standard. I haven't yet purchased the new standard, so I'm working off of the DIS, and what I have read about the standard here and elsewhere.

I don't see the term nonconformance in the text of the standard. I find conformance, conformity, and nonconformity. I realize the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but to my ear, nonconformance is more of a state, or collective term, nonconformity, more appropriate to describe an instance. Please excuse my prejudice that to discuss a subject clearly, the terms used require clear definitions.

Similarly, I cannot find major and minor nonconformance or nonconformity in the standard. I remember reading somewhere online that these categories were something KPMG more or less arbitrarily came up with.

A quick search of the archives here turned up the rule that 5 to 7 minors = a major in in old standard, which I guess at this point would be the old, old standard.

Can anyone help me connect the dots? My firm's corrective action system uses the major and minor nonconformance scheme, which does not seem to have any basis in the standard.

Rex

Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 9th May 2001, 03:20 PM
Marc's Avatar
Marc Marc is online now
Your Elsmar Cove Host

 
Registration Date: Jan 1996
Location: West Chester - Southern Ohio - USA
Age: 64
 
Posts: 24,015
Thanks Given to Others: 9,409
Thanked 5,149 Times in 3,271 Posts
Blog Entries: 4
Karma Power: 400
Karma: 31887
Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Yin Yang

-> I don't see the term nonconformance in the text of the
-> standard. I find conformance, conformity, and
-> nonconformity.

It's semantics. And differences in American English vs Queens English a bit. In addition, there is a difference between a system nonconformance and a part nonconformance. And it can get worse if you think in terms of defects vs defectives. So - we have system nonconformities and part/product nonconformities.

A nonconformity is a nonconformance. The difference is that the word nonconformance is not even found in an english dictionary. But:

Nonconformity:
Pronunciation - nan kEn for mih ti
Definition 1. refusal or failure to conform, esp. to societal customs, values, or the like.
Definition 2. lack of compliance or adherence, as to a standard, specification, regulation, or the like.

This is why the standard uses the term nonconformity I think. This is not to say nonconformance is not a word, but I have yet to find it in a dictionary.

-> to my ear, nonconformance is more of a state, or
-> collective term, nonconformity, more appropriate to
-> describe an instance. Please excuse my prejudice that to
-> discuss a subject clearly, the terms used require clear
-> definitions

Life is full of little inconsistencies. This is just one.

See This Thread

KPMG did not start major and minor findings. It is from the original ISO. Not from the ISO 9001 document but it was part of the original registration scheme.

There are documents available to registrars that are not available to you or me. I forget the main document name or who authored it. The number 67 or 65 rings a bell. Anyway, the idea was and is to provide some classification of findings.

There is a third 'finding'. It was originally called an 'observation' which was typically the opinion of an auditor on how you could improve something. This is often called an 'opportunity for improvement' as well. But - it is nothing less than an opinion and as we all know, opinions are like a__holes - everyone has at least one.

-> A quick search of the archives here turned up the rule
-> that 5 to 7 minors = a major in in old standard, which I
-> guess at this point would be the old, old standard.

This was a very early 'rule of thumb - 5 to 7 minors in any one 'category' or element was a major. It did not really make sense as in companies of 5000+ employees one expects to find more minors than in a company of 100 employees. Registrars each seem to come up with their own thresholds these days.

Maybe someone working for a registrar can shed some light here.
Sponsored Links

  #3  
Old 10th May 2001, 10:13 AM
Q rex
Unregistered Guest

 
 
Posts: n/a
Thanks, Marc.

If the major/minor scheme disappeared from the standard at least two revisions ago, why does it linger in many companies' corrective action and audit systems?

I don't see anything about majors and minors in the 1994 standard some of our offices are registered to, but the criteria that is advertised for passing a registration or surveilance audit is "no major nonconformances". This is with a registrar who's auditing to the standard, and the passing grade is based on an undefined (in the standard) category of an undefined (in the standard) deviation. I don't get it.

If I'm the customer for the registrar's service and my requirement is to be audited against the standard, and the registrar is using criteria that have no basis in the standard, how is that meeting my requirement?

Self declaration is looking better and better to me.

Always a pleasure visiting here,

Rex
  #4  
Old 10th May 2001, 10:26 AM
Marc's Avatar
Marc Marc is online now
Your Elsmar Cove Host

 
Registration Date: Jan 1996
Location: West Chester - Southern Ohio - USA
Age: 64
 
Posts: 24,015
Thanks Given to Others: 9,409
Thanked 5,149 Times in 3,271 Posts
Blog Entries: 4
Karma Power: 400
Karma: 31887
Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Yin Yang

Major and Minor were never in ISO 9001. That was and is part of the registrars' documentation. I don't know that you have to use it internally - there is no requirement for you to. But the convention is to use them to classify what is 'serious' and what is not. It's sorta like you don't do a corrective action every time there is the slightest nonconformance - you'd be doing corrective action reports all the time.

You 'don't get it' because it is not a stated requirement of ISO 9001. That does not mean it is not part of the REGISTRAR'S requirements.

Just out of curiosity, is there a specific reason you object to major and minor classifications? I have for a long time objected to 'observation' (aka opportunity for improvement) as some auditors use them as a hammer to some degree (and I'm not convinced auditors are always qualified to say what is 'an opportunity for improvement). But major and minor never bugged me.
  #5  
Old 10th May 2001, 01:08 PM
Dan Larsen
Unregistered Guest

 
 
Posts: n/a
I don't have a problem with registrars using the major and minor breakdown, and most have it pretty well defined. But to have a major/minor scheme for an internal CA system seems confusing. If I were to audit such a system, I'd look carefully at the definitions being used and how and who is judging severity. The next question that comes to mind is how do they differ in being taken care of within the system.

IMO, don't get wrapped up in majors and minors in internal systems. It either works or it doesn't; if it doesn't work, fix it.

Before I get lambasted for promoting CA's for every little thing, keep in mind that many fixes are quick and not worth writing up. Discretion is key. But if a CA is warrented for a problem, it's past the point of being minor.
  #6  
Old 10th May 2001, 02:02 PM
Marc's Avatar
Marc Marc is online now
Your Elsmar Cove Host

 
Registration Date: Jan 1996
Location: West Chester - Southern Ohio - USA
Age: 64
 
Posts: 24,015
Thanks Given to Others: 9,409
Thanked 5,149 Times in 3,271 Posts
Blog Entries: 4
Karma Power: 400
Karma: 31887
Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Yin Yang

I don't see it as a big deal internally whether you use the two or not. The important part is how you decide what, if any, corrective action has to be taken when a nonconformity is identified.
  #7  
Old 10th May 2001, 03:16 PM
Q rex
Unregistered Guest

 
 
Posts: n/a
It just seems like excess baggage to me.

I'm working with a QMS developed at another office in my company, that features these, I guess through parroting what the registrar has to say when they come to town. I want to understand where it comes from and decide if I think it's a good idea, before mounting a challenge to an entrenched system.

My take on its use is that things rarely get labelled major, because that's equivalent to a confession that the certificate should be pulled. If not used, why have it, other than to give the registrar something else to ding you over?

Rex
  #8  
Old 10th May 2001, 03:39 PM
energy
Unregistered Guest

 
 
Posts: n/a
I also do not care for the major minor thing, but in spite of not wanting the registrar to see "majors, someone who doesn't know where a procedure is-has an obsolete copy in their possession-displays ignorance to what's in a procedure in their domain, has to get a major. That's not even close to minor. We just have to follow up with a very strong CAR, including and up to disciplinary action. A registrar then knows you are serious about your certification.(registration)(accreditation)whatever!
energy
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > Common Quality Assurance Processes and Tools > Nonconformance and Corrective Action

Do you find this discussion thread helpful and informational?


Bookmarks


Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Forum Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
Is it necessary to classify nonconformance as minor, major, observations in an IQA? miwriter Internal Auditing 18 12th February 2011 03:29 AM
Major Nonconformity vs. Minor Nonconformity - Definition and Differences hibou Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations 8 10th December 2008 01:22 AM
Establishing Internal Audit Nonconformity Level Criteria - Major vs. Minor? stanislavd Internal Auditing 46 18th July 2006 09:47 PM
What happens if a Major or Minor Nonconformance is found during Surveillance Audit mjflkitty ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 - Questions and Discussions 4 26th April 2005 08:38 AM
Major/Minor Nonconformity - Nonconformance from last audit found again mjflkitty Nonconformance and Corrective Action 15 8th November 2004 02:53 PM



The time now is 09:47 AM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.


   


Marc Timothy Smith - Elsmar.com
8466 LeSourdsville-West Chester Road, Olde West Chester, Ohio 45069-1929
513 341-6272