I'm afraid that we have to identify risks as specified by ISO 9001:2015 clause 4.4.1f which says:
The organization shall determine the processes needed for the quality management system and their application throughout the organization, and shall:
f) address the risks and opportunities as determined in accordance with the requirements of 6.1"
Some examples of risks:
- Human Resource - hiring of persons with derogatory character;
- Documentation - use of obsolete documents for the current operation;
- Finance - inaccurate billing;
- Internal Audit - baseless audit findings;
- Management Review - uncommitted top management;
- Communication - incomplete data;
- Inspection - good products judged as bad or vice versa;
- Sales - forgot to bring product catalog
Well, 6.1 cites 4.1 and 4.2, which give specific lists of places to look for risks and opportunities -- to your interested parties (4.2) and your external and internal business operations (4.1) which it lists as things like legal, market, cultural, values, and performance.
I'm wondering if maybe your list might be a little overly specific. Most of these risks would already be addressed in your QMS documentation; for example, human resources probably has job descriptions, and ways to check an employee's job references; the finance department has a billing strategy, or probably a computer system that regulates billing; your internal audit staff has been trained not to waste time on baseless findings.
This list might be a good check of whether the systems you have in place would take care of these issues, but IMO they seem too small to be listed as risks for your QMS. What are the terrible ramifications if a salesperson forgets the catalog? They can drive back to the office and pick it up, and get back on their sales route, or they can refer a client to a web catalog. Putting the sales catalog online might well be an opportunity that would be worth investigating, but because it would be really beneficial to your customer--not just to make sure that one sales guy doesn't have to waste gas.
The CEO of my company is a really great worrier, and could make a list of the most infinitesimal of risks--he puts himself in a tailspin all the time when he thinks of them, and tends to trip up the workflow by interfering when he panics. I think the standard intends to set a larger sense of risk, and especially to direct the majority of risk-based thinking towards the customer and what the customer wants.