|
|
|
From: http://16949.com/level2/m-vs-m.html
|
|
There's absolutely nothing
in ISO9000 to cover this. It's just one of those things that SLAGIATT
(seemed like a good idea at the time), became standard practice, and has
grown to be almost axiomatic.
|
|
I think it grew from formal
auditing practice, where a Major nonconformance was enough by itself to
warrant refusal of certification/registration, a Minor was enough to insist
on corrective action (and if there were enough minors, refuse certification),
and an observation was not one where corrective action was mandatory.
|
|
However, given that it had
to do with what was allowed and mandated, it has little relevance in any
responsible approach to internal auditing or classification of
nonconformances. In internal auditing, there are either things that need to
be fixed or things that don't: the things that need to be fixed can be
regarded as problems, nonconformances, issues, or improvement
recommendations. In classification of product/service nonconformances, I
suggest only two classifications: acute, where immediate corrective action is
warranted (we never want this to happen again), and chronic, where Pareto
prioritisation should precede corrective action (this is happening too
often).
|