Are you documenting Internal Audit findings as NCRs?

Marcelo

Inactive Registered Visitor
what you call it is semantics

It's not semantics, particularly if you are trying to show compliance with a standard. This in fact is, in my opinion, one of the worst problems organizations face due to misunderstanding of the concepts.

If you call an NC a corrective action directly, by the definition, this action has to eliminate the cause of the NC to prevent recurrence. EVEN if there's no way or need to do that. Usually what I see is organizations doing this and then struggling to find an action (and most of the time in the end what they do is only a correction, not a corrective action).

If you follow the steps from NC, to action on EV, to evaluation of root cause, to decision if a CA is needed or not, this does not happen.
 

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
So far it seems like there are opinions of varying degrees. Perhaps I can expound a little and y'all can provide feedback.

The IA finding was that particular reports were not being filed at the conclusion of an individuals attendance of an outside training or conference. Per the internal procedure, a report was to be completed and submitted. It was found that this was not happening at all... a complete failure to comply with the internal standard.

My thoughts:

A finding should go into the IA report, and a Corrective Action should be initiated for proper tracking, documentation, and records (per ISO:9001.)

Thoughts? Opinions? Life Lessons? Words of Wisdom?

In every system I have used, this would be an internal audit nonconformity and would trigger a CAR.
 

tony s

Information Seeker
Trusted Information Resource
Hi Covers,

I had a conversation the other day where the individual told me that they don't open CARs or any other formal report for Internal Audit findings.

Is this normal? Throughout my short career in Quality, thus far I have always documented and tracked Internal Audit Findings on NCRs/CARs.

Let's define first an audit finding. ISO 19011:2011 defines audit findings as "results of the evaluation of the collected audit evidence against audit criteria". Note 1 further clarifies the result by saying "audit findings indicate conformity or nonconformity". Therefore, not all audit findings are NCs that require correction and/or corrective action.
 

howste

Thaumaturge
Trusted Information Resource
Let's define first an audit finding. ISO 19011:2011 defines audit findings as "results of the evaluation of the collected audit evidence against audit criteria". Note 1 further clarifies the result by saying "audit findings indicate conformity or nonconformity". Therefore, not all audit findings are NCs that require correction and/or corrective action.

Exactly true. That's why I stated:
No, that's not normal if the findings are nonconforming.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Hi Tony, of course, you can share your opinion any time you want. Your post reminding us all of the definition of the term finding is very appropriate and I believe Steve was emphasizing the aspect that many people mistake the term finding as synonymous to nonconformity.

Thanks for reminding us all of the real meaning for the word finding. The term can designate not only nonconformities, but also positive and negative observations as well as noteworthy comments.
 

tony s

Information Seeker
Trusted Information Resource
I was trying to agree with what you said. :agree: Sorry if it was poorly worded.

Sorry also, I mistakenly perceived it as a "stand down" comment. I realized that you're only trying to establish agreement with our posts.:eek:
 
Top Bottom