Alternate Terms for NonConformance, Internal Audits, Corrective and Preventative

[JaneB]

Re: Alturnate Terms for NonConformance, Internal Audits, Corrective and Preventative

You will not find these specific behaviour traits to be auditing body specific, but rather auditor specific. From the same auditing body, one auditor might willingly accept, even encourage your initiative, while the next fellow who comes around may find serious flaws in it. You must have already sensed it in this discussion.

Thanks Potsdar, but no, I did mean what I wrote, the auditing body itself. I agree with you that auditors vary and of course I've experienced this, seeing many, many external audits & different auditors at work from many different certifiers.

But all auditors are employed by, and representative of, the organisation itself, which is responsible for monitoring & selecting them (at times not as well as we'd like!), sending them out to audit, maintaining the technical management/oversight of the audits, and who ultimately holds the accreditation which enables them to issue the certificate.

The auditing body itself - the registrar - is ultimately responsible. Just as any other service provider is responsible for making sure the level & standards of their services delivered are, & remain, as they would wish, & taking effective action if not. I don't see the 'might get a different auditor' as at all a good reason to not make one's quality management system suit one's own business and context and people. It's the owners' business, not the auditors. Nor do I see the 'getting a different auditor' as something to be greatly feared. If it happens and if the auditor has a problem, it can be handled.

Yes, it's possible & it happens that an individual auditor will disagree with another auditor from the same firm. But if necessary, one can take action such as expressing dissatisfaction to the firm, asking for another opinion/auditor, taking up issues with their technical management etc. Auditors are not all-powerful, omnipotent or always right, contrary to widely-held opinions and self-beliefs (and I'm a registered auditor too

I've had experience with one particular firm here (can't give details, I'm afraid) where the approach from the firm & its auditors was a very 'you vill do it our vay & no other vay is good'... customer feedback & etc was ignored. Ultimately their view was: do it our way. And the client took a lot more time and effort in assessing other potential certifiers ... and then switched certifiers.

If any auditor wants to thrust any NC (red flag?) on you that you dont agree with, dont accept it. No red flag is a red flag unless the party under scrutiny signs it as 'accepted'.

True. But happy to have the auditor call it an NC. We aren't making them change their terms Down boy Randy, down.

 

[Falco]

Thank you for this thread and all of the replies. I too am attempting to integrate the intent of the standard into our way of doing business in such a manner that encourages our staff to embrace the ideals of the standard. I have confirmed my original thoughts and come away with some fresh ideas and for that I thank all of you on both sides of the discussion.
Our systems in place to help the company get better are useless if the staff will not embrace them. Finding the method that enables team members embrace and contribute willingly is the key. If terminology is a challenge, change it and move forward.
I like the naming contest idea and may give that a try. Thanks again.

 

[mirrorcrax]

I think you're tackling an excellent subject, as repackaging the standard into more identifiable terms will definitely improve communication within the company, IMHO the more you are able to dilute the requirements of the standard into the company's actual activities the more effective its going to be,ironically this produces more controversy on the auditor's side, especially those with a mind set of finding 6 mandatory procedure documents named exactly as the terms used in the standard.

So, first off i Salute you for identifying the first key to a successful QMS, Good Communication, next off, here'r my two cents:

Regarding:

Non-conformance: discrepancy, mismatch, vulnerability (not recommended though as it gives a negative notion), work item, ....etc.

Internal Audit: Process Check, Info Quest (sounds like a company name, but auditing is basically derived from "listening"), Checkup, there was a client who called it OVR (Occurrence Variance Report) which sounds more complicated...etc.

Now comes the big one, Corrective actions and Preventive actions, here's what i usually do to avoid the never-ending struggle of explaining that you cannot perform corrective and preventive actions at the same time, i simply don't use those terms at all, i suggest having a process called "Performance Improvement" and use a form called "Improvement form" and in that form, the nature of the problem / potential problem is described, another area for identifying the root cause and another area for the solution, this way i let go the terms, i also put a definition of what can be termed as a problem or potential problem at the back of the form, remember:there is already several other procedures where corrective action can be taken, like customer complaints, handling nonconforming products, and even internal audits, so you don't want to instruct them to use the form in situations where there is a redundancy of them.....

hope this helps