Definition Major vs. Minor Nonconformance (Finding) - Internal Audit - Definition & Differences

[E Wall]

For further clarification of our situation:
We also use Major/Minor to assist management review information (let's face it most managers don't have time to get caught up in all the little details - that's why they deligate responsibility).

This clarification helps to identify when a stronger 'lead' is needed from mgmt staff in the areas audited as well as a heads up that hey, if this is happening elsewhere - check up on your staff to make sure they're not dropping the ball to.

With 10 departments to go through our internal auditing selects a sampling group - does not audit all 10 depts for same element/clause. Additionally, depending on the number of processes in the department a further reduction of sample size can be done. Example: 1 dept with 10 processes - auditor may select 5 processes to review.

 

[energy]

E Wall,

You appear to have a system where everybody is tuned to the same channel. That's great. My situation is different as we are starting up and the uncertainty I detect in our Internal Auditors about classification of findings has caused us to forego that "option" until everyone is comfortable with it. Our Internal Auditing trainer, outside source, kept referring to major and minor during his presentation. I finally told him to refer to observations as "findings" and get on with the course. He agreed. Until such a time as we all can tell the difference between the two commonly used terms, and the criteria for determination, we have to do this. We may create our own, like Norad's DEF-CON 1, 2, 3, etc.. Code Red, Blue, Yellow, etc..Have a good one! Keep smiling.

energy

 

[David Mullins]

1. Registrars/Certifiers use major and minor because that way they can call a nonconformity a minor and still register organisations with crappy systems - and the registrar's customer is happy.
2. Translated to internal auditing - Imagine the scenario of issuing a major on a dept from an internal audit. HOD/manager says little until you, the MR, present a report on auditing activities at management review. NOW the trap springs shut! HOD/manager bursts into a song and dance presentation, with mountains of conjured up evidence, demonstrating to all his nodding peers that not only was there no MAJOR, but there should have been no nonconformity reported at all. Clearly the quality system is a farce, run by incompetent idiots and wasting valuable time, money and resources that said HOD/manager now breaks into part 2 of his presentation on how to use the money from dissolving the current quality garbage and establishing a caotic system which clearly provides better ROI.

In short - you're fooling yourself and the company if you use majors and minors. They (production/service providers) will always work to down-grade a major, and you'll just get more screwed than usual (oh, and the internal auditor involved will quit!)

NOTE - remember, you lead people not systems.

------------------

 

[mooser]

Dave,
Unfortunately we all have to deal with politics wherever we are. But we can use politics to our advantage even in internal auditing. For every department head that I
meet with I also invite either his superior or related manager. For example, I had one department with 2 finding in different elements (one in training & one in work instruction). We met with the dept. supervisor & HR manager for training issue and with the same dept. supervisor & production manager for the work instruction issue, in our closing meeting. This way the dept supervisor realized that the responsibility was not entirely his.
Politics are a fact of life and we need to work with or around it the best we can. If we work completely against it we will only be frustrated, but I guess that's a whole other subject.

mooser

 

[E Wall]

Originally posted by energy:
E Wall,
You appear to have a system where everybody is tuned to the same channel.

It has been a fight! I've been on board here 3.5 yrs. The tail end of last year (after losing more auditors to transfers) I showed them that using a 'canned' Internal Auditing program (customized by me for our processes) would save $$$$ on external training classes. Not to mention better consistancy in methodology, terminology...etc

Having the $ numbers was the kicker that made it a go. We purchased a 'kit' from Technicomp (they'll send it & others for demo). When we received the 'full' version I added a few of my own overheads, replaced the 'Company X' information & situations to suit our info and environment and trained from that.

Since I got to set up our Site Internal Audit Certification Course, I was given full reign so to pass the course you must attend the classroom training, pass a written exam with 80% or higher, participate in an internal audit (with me as Lead) and they are each evaluated (again, requirements I set up) on their demonstrated knowledge & techniques, pass with a 80% or higher...scores are averaged and then I hold exit course interviews...allow them a chance to feedback to me (for course improvement), if you pass you're an internal auditor if not...I let them know what we need to work on, how we're going to do it, and rock on!

Originally posted by energy:

Have a good one! Keep smiling.
energy

YOU TOO!!!!!


------------------
Eileen V. Wall
ISO Coordinator

 

[David Mullins]

JUST TO CLARIFY:
My previous scenario was completely fictitious. Intended to provide an example of how things can come unstuck when you impose unreasonable requirements not needed by the standard or the employer.

------------------

 

[energy]

The trap

David,
I understand completely about your trap concept. As the MR and lead Auditor, the determination of a "major" issued internally lays with your's truly. A trap can only be sprung if you don't do a thorough investigation. The scenario you present can happen in large companies where everybody is "on their own". The communication is such that information is obtained at weekly meetings where people tend to demonstrate their profound knowledge of the system or what's wrong with it. Trying to shine. It's at the closing meeting of the audit with the audited individual that you get the flavor where the issue is going. If he/she signs off on the finding as understood, they don't have to agree with it. But, you should be able to gage how it is perceived. Other than that, you (we) have to be smarter than that. Do the leg work, if you intend to use the "major" distinction. Me?, as you know, disagree with the idea of classifying findings. Even though they are not classified as such, in large companies, you can fall on your sword if you do not do your homework before issuing a finding. Hey, David, that's why we're here. To separate the wheat from the chaff!

energy

 

[CarolX]

Here's my $.005 worth (seen the price of gas in the chicago/milwaukee area???)

From my old DoD contractor days:

Minor - nonconformity could be corrected on the spot. i.e. calibration sticker fell off a micrometer

Major - nonconformity resulted from breakdown or failur to follow the system. i.e. non-calibrated micrometer used for product acceptance.

I know many issues may not be this black/white, but many can be.

Best of Luck!!!

CarolX

 

[energy]

what a hassle

Carol,
And how are you on this very fine day? In the hypothetical case of the sticker that fell off, if it fell off, it should be on the floor somewhere. I mean, if somebody was sweeping up, they would see it and wonder where it came from. If it were on the floor, it doesn't even need mentioning, unless we were just showing somone how attentive we are. If it wasn't to be seen, it may have never been put on after it was calibrated. (Of course we checked to see that it is calibrated and current.) Would a technician failing to complete this very important task be considered a candidate for a "major". It may be a "minor" because it fell off. Prove it. By just reporting it as a finding, you save all that hassle. Corrective Action: Put one on. Preventive: check equipment daily to ensure labels/stickers are applied. Done.
Not hassling you..JMHO
energy

 

[David Mullins]

ZACKARY!

Carol and Energy have underlined my point of view - One persons major is another persons observation/finding/insignificant event hardly worth mentioning. And that's a whole ship load of gap between understandings - may be the statisticians can give me a standard deviation on that. Leave NC classification upto to psuedo experts - the registrars.