Customer Audit Nonconformity on Internal Audit Program done by Corporate QA

[sagai]

ps.:
Regardless how careful we try to be, there is a chance we do mistakes, actually its very true to me too, the question if we learn from others and also from our own mistakes.

 

[sridharafep]

IS your corporate is part of the scope of the certification?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

IS your corporate is part of the scope of the certification?

There is no mention of certification in this thread so far. The question stands, irrespective if the organization is certified or not.

 

[sridharafep]

Then the question is the outsourced process and its control could be an issue.

(As corporate could be separate entity - if not covered by the scope)

 

[USMCbryan]

Re: 2nd Party Audit of Internal Audit Program

Sidney, thanks for you input. With respect to your follow-up questions, the corporate auditors were trained and the activity was controlled.

 

[USMCbryan]

No, corporate is not part of the scope of registration.

 

[ndted]

So ... how would you eliminate the recurrence of this accepted NC?
Cheers!

I would do this by addressing in the Audit procedure that if audits are done by an outside source, including a corporate quality representative, the auditor shall not audit work they were involved in.

 

[Joanb]

That is where your CAPA system kicks in (corrective and preventive action).

 

[Sidney Vianna]

That is where your CAPA system kicks in (corrective and preventive action).

The corrective action should kick in after a VALID nonconformity is detected. It is impossible for any organization to effect true & effective corrective action for spurious problems.

Depending on the seriousness of the auditors and auditees, suppliers can pretend to perform corrective action, just to appease a misguided client when they receive a questionable corrective action request. That's an age-old problem: customer representatives PRETEND to audit and suppliers PRETEND to do corrective action. It tends to keep everyone happy until a real problem pops up.

 

[Big Jim]

The corrective action should kick in after a VALID nonconformity is detected. It is impossible for any organization to effect true & effective corrective action for spurious problems.

Depending on the seriousness of the auditors and auditees, suppliers can pretend to perform corrective action, just to appease a misguided client when they receive a questionable corrective action request.

Absolutely correct. Trying to respond to a bogus nonconformance is awkward at best and truly is impossible when you can't really see where you fell short. I hate trying to help clients respond to bogus nonconformances.