Quality Systems Supervisor given a Nonconformance and Request for Corrctive Action

[Claes Gefvenberg]

In Reply to Parent Post by Cari Spears

If the Pres, or anyone else does not wish to have the issue "assigned" to them, I ask who I should delegate it to.

Exactly. That's what I do as well.

/Claes

[wrodnigg]

To my opinion the wording of a NC is very very important (and also the conversation during the detection of NCs).

It is not really a problem to phrase a NC in a way, that no person is "accused".

For example: "New or revised regulatory requirements have not been considered in the management review [5.6.2.h@13485:2003]"

As an auditor I do not care, who might have been responsible for this issue. And it is the responsibility of the QSS to fix this gap (or assign the job).

It is always the same problem: NCs shall be understood as chances for improvement, not as penalty.

And it should be up to the auditor to evoke this sentiment

[RCBeyette]

In Reply to Parent Post by wrodnigg

To my opinion the wording of a NC is very very important (and also the conversation during the detection of NCs).

It is not really a problem to phrase a NC in a way, that no person is "accused".

As an auditor I do not care, who might have been responsible for this issue. And it is the responsibility of the QSS to fix this gap (or assign the job).

Totally agree! The wording of a NC should not be about blame but simply state the facts (i.e., why it is a finding, what elements are not met, what processes are not followed/established, etc.).

If there is a problem with the system I am responsible for maintaining, by all means issue me a NC - my Internal Auditors know this.

As for our top dog, we give him findings, too, where appropriate. He is reponsible for ensuring Management's commitment and if the Management Committee is found to be lacking in this or not meeting their requirements as outlined in the Standard, the finding is issued to him to resolve the situation.

The Internal Auditors here are a great group who know that it's not about assigning blame, pointing fingers, or doing audits to catch people "breaking the law"...it's about determining the overall health of the system and looking for areas to improve the system.

[mshell]

I agree that the NC should not place blame on a person. If a person is blamed, the auditees become withdrawn and afraid to offer honest responses which handicaps the ability to improve the Quality System. I am facing that issue now as the previsous QM did not have this view point. Audits were conducted without notice, too frequently and were used as a means for the auditor to SHOW OFF by using big words that were not clearly understood on the shop floor. Any NC's were viewed as failure not improvement opprotunities. I have stressed the fact that NC's are to improve the system and should never be taken as a personal attack. I will find out next week if the employees are buying it because we kick off our new and improved audit program. I have a feeling this is one of those SHOW ME issues.

[Tom W]

I agree that NCs should not be written towards any individual or group of individuals. In fact I go out of my way to ensure that I do not list the names of anyone in any NC. If I have to, I will use a job title to emphasis my point but only if I have to. Audits are for system improvements, there should be other devices in place to verify employee performance and competence.

Nothing new here, but I would like to think that no one is above taking corrective actions. If we change or alter our nonconformance because it reflects on the president or some other top employee, then we are compromising our integrity and our ethics. Facts are facts and that is what we need to audit. Just the facts. Follow those facts wherever they may take you. Improvements to the business should override any hurt feelings.

Ouch!!! I just hurt my ankle getting down off the box!!!

In Reply to Parent Post by RCBeyette

Totally agree! The wording of a NC should not be about blame but simply state the facts (i.e., why it is a finding, what elements are not met, what processes are not followed/established, etc.).

Who would write an NC blaming anybody? Like, "I regret to inform you that because you have been derelict in your duties, this report is directed at you for resolution." Let's keep it real. When an unfavorable audit report is written towards any department, nothing you say makes the Supervisor feel any better. It's their responsibility and they know it. You can say, "Joe, this is not directed at you as a person, but we have to do something about it." Joe says, "Well, we couldn't we have talked about it?" Joe's day is ruined. These reports may be reviewed at Management Review meetings, or other meetings with Top Management. So, because it about processes with owners, "noses do get out of joint". Always has been and always will be. Does that mean we stop? No. Don't worry. Processes don't have feelings.

[Aaron Lupo]

JMO.

No matter how many times you tell them the N/C is to improve the system it does not matter. Remember if you are writting a N/C against their process you are telling them there is something wrong with it that needs to be fixed. The process is the manager/supervisors BABY and you are telling them they have an UGLY BABY of course they will take it personally, I would be kind of worried if they didn't. When N/C's are written against my processes to be honest with you it ticks me off only because that means I messed up and I should know better. Most people take pride in their work and that is why they are offened when a N/C is written against their process.

[RCBeyette]

In Reply to Parent Post by energy

Who would write an NC blaming anybody? Like, "I regret to inform you that because you have been derelict in your duties, this report is directed at you for resolution." Let's keep it real. When an unfavorable audit report is written towards any department, nothing you say makes the Supervisor feel any better. It's their responsibility and they know it. You can say, "Joe, this is not directed at you as a person, but we have to do something it." Joe says, "Well, we couldn't we have talked about it?" Joe's day is ruined. These reports may be reviewed at Management Review meetings, or other meetings with Top Management. So, because it about processes with owners, "noses do get out of joint". Always has been and always will be. Does that mean we stop? No. Don't worry. Processes don't have feelings.

It's all about wording and semantics. Which is phrased more suitably?

Version A
John Doe and Jane Smith are not following the documented process as required by...

Version B
The documented process is not adhered to as required by...

Either way, the NC will be sent to someone to address it, but Version A points fewer fingers than Version B. True, in a small company we will all know it was John and Jane who "caused" this NC and are to blame, but that does not need to be documented on the NC itself, does it?

As for your example where Joe asked if we could talk about it, that's what the audit is for. Before I leave an area, I ensure that the auditee is aware of and clearly understands any findings that have been generated in that area. If not, I explain again. This gives Joe the opportunity to clarify any possible misunderstandings or miscommunications...or to point me in the direction where the issue can potentially be resolved. This is not only my auditing style, but my auditing experience, as well. My Customer/Client/Auditee (whichever word you prefer) is given ample opportunity to show me their process(es) and conformity to the requirements.

Do I like receiving a NC against a system that I feel is "my baby"? Of course not...but I understand that if I can not demonstrate to the auditor's satisfaction that my house is in order, than I deserve the finding. I accept it. As do the other members of this organization's team.



FWIW, I will be upset if I feel the finding is not valid, which means the auditor failed to convince me that it was an issue. I have yet to have this experience on an internal audit, but external audits.......