Area for Improvement or Non conformance

[EEJen]

I was looking for input on how others handle this finding. Audit Scope - Receiving Process

The receiving process is defined. There are four different processes for receiving 1) Standard purchased product for assembly going to warehouse (2) Material sent out to a supplier for processing (3) Raw material going to the production floor (4) Returned product

Process 1 & 4 are documented. Process 2 & 3 are not documented.

I have not found evidence that the processes are ineffective.

I plan to write this up for Area for Improvement.

If you think it is a non conformance, what is the requirement because there is not an internal requirement in the company and ISO 9001:2008 does not require all processes to be documented.

Have a great day.

 

[Chennaiite]

I was looking for input on how others handle this finding. Audit Scope - Receiving Process

The receiving process is defined. There are four different processes for receiving 1) Standard purchased product for assembly going to warehouse (2) Material sent out to a supplier for processing (3) Raw material going to the production floor (4) Returned product

I understand from this, you have a documented procedure. Correct me if I am wrong.

Process 1 & 4 are documented. Process 2 & 3 are not documented.

I have not found evidence that the processes are ineffective.

I plan to write this up for Area for Improvement.

If you think it is a non conformance, what is the requirement because there is not an internal requirement in the company and ISO 9001:2008 does not require all processes to be documented.

Have a great day.

May I understand exactly what do you mean by *not documented* ?
You mean, there is no Receipt Note, Quality Inspection & some other that you follow for 1&4 ?

 

[EEJen]

The documented procedure includes 1 & 4 but it does not include 2 & 3.

Required records for 2 & 3 are kept but are different from 1 & 4.

For example, raw materials go directly to the floor and inspected by qualified personnel on the floor.

Would the non conformance be that these process do not comply with the documented receiving procedure? I might have answered my own question for the non conformance. This is an internal audit. Want to encourage documenting the other processes vs trying to fit the other processes into the documented process.

Sometimes it takes writing it out to have the ah ha moment. You know it just not quite right but can not pin point the requirement.

 

[Chennaiite]

The documented procedure includes 1 & 4 but it does not include 2 & 3.

Required records for 2 & 3 are kept but are different from 1 & 4.

For example, raw materials go directly to the floor and inspected by qualified personnel on the floor.

Would the non conformance be that these process do not comply with the documented receiving procedure? I might have answered my own question for the non conformance. This is an internal audit. Want to encourage documenting the other processes vs trying to fit the other processes into the documented process.

Sometimes it takes writing it out to have the ah ha moment. You know it just not quite right but can not pin point the requirement.

It would not be a bad idea to have a complete documented procedure, especially in this case where you have four different methods of dealings. I would prefer referring to 4.1c.

c) determine criteria and methods needed to ensure that both the operation and control of these processes are effective

,​

 

[ChrissieO]

I was looking for input on how others handle this finding. Audit Scope - Receiving Process

The receiving process is defined. There are four different processes for receiving 1) Standard purchased product for assembly going to warehouse (2) Material sent out to a supplier for processing (3) Raw material going to the production floor (4) Returned product

Process 1 & 4 are documented. Process 2 & 3 are not documented.

I have not found evidence that the processes are ineffective.

I plan to write this up for Area for Improvement.

If you think it is a non conformance, what is the requirement because there is not an internal requirement in the company and ISO 9001:2008 does not require all processes to be documented.

Have a great day.

I would not class this as a non conformance as this is not a required procedure but if you feel a procedure would be of use raise it as an improvement but don't have procedures just for the sake of it.

As you said you have found the process to be efficient but there needs to be a contingency plan in place i.e. if the team that conducted this procedure where to win a lottery syndicate and walk out tomorrow, would the process be able to be carried out effectiely.

Chrssie

 

[tomvehoski]

Who cares if it is a NC or OFI? If the company would be better off by documenting 2 & 3, then document them. If not (or there are bigger fires to fight), don't bother. If they would be better off not having 1 & 4 documented, get rid of the document all together.

 

[AndyN]

I was looking for input on how others handle this finding. Audit Scope - Receiving Process

The receiving process is defined. There are four different processes for receiving 1) Standard purchased product for assembly going to warehouse (2) Material sent out to a supplier for processing (3) Raw material going to the production floor (4) Returned product

Process 1 & 4 are documented. Process 2 & 3 are not documented.

I have not found evidence that the processes are ineffective.

I plan to write this up for Area for Improvement.

If you think it is a non conformance, what is the requirement because there is not an internal requirement in the company and ISO 9001:2008 does not require all processes to be documented.

Have a great day.

Why does it need to be improved? If the undocumented process is performed often, is well understood, can be shown to be effective and the 'players' all give you a similar 'story' what's the point? What are you trying to improve?

Often, well understood processes don't need writing down. Brushing your teeth, driving your car etc. Less well understood/infrequently done processes - filling in the tax return - may need some description.

 

[AndyN]

Who cares if it is a NC or OFI? If the company would be better off by documenting 2 & 3, then document them. If not (or there are bigger fires to fight), don't bother. If they would be better off not having 1 & 4 documented, get rid of the document all together.

"Better off" is a very subjective conclusion for any auditor to draw! It's not for auditors to decide this, but to evaluate if the process works and to report to management. Since this isn't a non-conformity with ISO 9001, the auditor shouldn't go around saying 'get rid of it'...

 

[Pancho]

Why does it need to be improved? If the undocumented process is performed often, is well understood, can be shown to be effective and the 'players' all give you a similar 'story' what's the point? What are you trying to improve?

Not speaking for the OP, but from our own similar cases. I see at least three reasons why we would want to document such processes.

1)
Training. It is much easier to teach new personnel about how something is done from explicit instructions than from tacit ones.

2)
Contingency. If the receiving super missed the bus (or got hit by it) who's going to know how to sort incoming goods?

3)
Improvement beyond the present "satisfactory" way of doing things. Once a process is documented, imperfections and opportunities become evident. Maybe an inspection can be done earlier to avoid costly handling, maybe the documentation is always chased at the last minute, etc. These things are not obvious unless the process is documented.


--
Finally, a material receiving procedure that reads something like the following would likely rise a PAR in our system, just because the opportunity for improvement is too obvious.

"There are four different processes for receiving (1) Standard purchased product for assembly going to warehouse (2) Material sent out to a supplier for processing (3) Raw material going to the production floor (4) Returned product.

For (1) follow [Std purch prod procedure], for (4) follow [Returns procedure]. For (2) and (3) ask Joe. He knows."

 

[AndyN]

Not speaking for the OP, but from our own similar cases. I see at least three reasons why we would want to document such processes.

1)
Training. It is much easier to teach new personnel about how something is done from explicit instructions than from tacit ones.

2)
Contingency. If the receiving super missed the bus (or got hit by it) who's going to know how to sort incoming goods?

3)
Improvement beyond the present "satisfactory" way of doing things. Once a process is documented, imperfections and opportunities become evident. Maybe an inspection can be done earlier to avoid costly handling, maybe the documentation is always chased at the last minute, etc. These things are not obvious unless the process is documented.


--
Finally, a material receiving procedure that reads something like the following would likely rise a PAR in our system, just because the opportunity for improvement is too obvious.

"There are four different processes for receiving (1) Standard purchased product for assembly going to warehouse (2) Material sent out to a supplier for processing (3) Raw material going to the production floor (4) Returned product.

For (1) follow [Std purch prod procedure], for (4) follow [Returns procedure]. For (2) and (3) ask Joe. He knows."

Pancho:

1) - Training comes from experience of doing the task. Past cultures (like the Vikings) couldn't write, but they were pretty effective! What if the person can't read? We also need to consider this "Tell me, and I will forget.
Show me, and I may remember. Involve me, and I will understand". Confucius, 450 B.C. There may be no need to train 'new people' it depends on turnover etc. We've not been told this is the case.

2) - Often, we learn from other people who do the same work. If the supervisor gets hit by a bus, this is a low risk. Why write it down for that type of contingency? If there's another person who did the work, ask them!

3) - I'd suggest that improvement should come from performance (C2C or C2B) indicators first. Writing a process (flow chart) down doesn't always (indeed, rarely) reveals any performance issues. As part of a 'discovery' process, doing a spaghetti diagram, will...but you don't see many of those in 'ISO' documentation!