Audit Finding Flowchart for Feedback

leaning

Involved In Discussions
#1
Hello!

In my studies, I was getting the corrective action process for nonconforming items mixed up with the corrective action process for audit findings. So, I flowcharted both, but I'd appreciate more eyes on it for feedback (good or bad).

(I'm posting the nonconforming item flowchart on another forum for similar review: "Nonconforming item flowchart for feedback" (EC won't let me link to it yet.)

I appreciate all your help and info.

In my studies, I was getting the corrective action process for nonconforming items mixed up with the corrective action process for audit findings. So, I flowcharted both, but I'd appreciate more eyes on it for feedback (good or bad).

(I'm posting the audit finding flowchart on another forum for similar review:"Audit Finding Flowchart for feedback" (EC won't let me link to it yet.)

I appreciate all your help and info.

Regards,
leaning
 

Attachments

leaning

Involved In Discussions
#3
I see one thing I need to remove: "incidental" is a "Classification of characteristics" thing which has nothing to to do with defects. :notme:


Defect Seriousness Classifications: critical, major, minor
Classification of Characteristics: critical, major, minor, incidental

It'd be nice if they didn't share three of the same levels. :)

Regards,
leaning
 

howste

Thaumaturge
Super Moderator
#4
While most of the flow is probably correct, I agree with Golfman that if you put it into a procedure it's too complicated for most people. Is this for use in the real world, or is this for a class?

One thing that I notice in both diagrams is that you do the corrective actions to address the root cause(s), and then you do the action to prevent recurrence. These are the same thing. Here's the definition of corrective action in ISO 9000:
corrective action

action to eliminate the cause of a nonconformity and to prevent recurrence

Note 1 to entry: There can be more than one cause for a nonconformity

Note 2 to entry: Corrective action is taken to prevent recurrence whereas preventive action is taken to prevent occurrence.
What you probably meant was to do containment and correction, then do the corrective action based on the cause(s).

FYI here's the ISO definition of correction:
correction

action to eliminate a detected nonconformity
 

leaning

Involved In Discussions
#5
Howste,

I did ASQ's CQT, CQIA, CSSGB, CQI, CQPA, CQE, plus I had LSSGB and LSSBB from the Army. Right now, I am part-time employee teaching a CQE test prep course.

When I took those tests, I hated the standard books that are normally used (QCI, ASQ handbooks, etc.) , so I created my own notes that condense all the expected stuff down to the bare bones plus capture the other nuggets that pop up that you spend too much time thinking about ("sensory Weibull ordinal tools", "Kepner-Tregoe", etc.) that aren't in those books.

The audit section isn't real technical, so if I can get a flow overview on a few pages, it saves the students from having to do the in-depth digging to find the answer. I'll get your feedback in there. Thanks for your help.:agree1:
Regards,
leaning
 

leaning

Involved In Discussions
#6
howste,

If I get what you are saying, you wouldn't do corrective action for something and then preventive action for that same something. Whatever corrective action you take by definition should fix the something and then stop it from ever happening again.

So, for an audit finding or nonconformance, you would never need to do preventive action steps for that finding/issue because the corrective action steps would capture those for now and the future.

So, preventive actions would only be for things you have never encountered before, otherwise, you would be handling those things under corrective action steps.

Is this good?

Regards,
leaning
 

howste

Thaumaturge
Super Moderator
#7
howste,

If I get what you are saying, you wouldn't do corrective action for something and then preventive action for that same something. Whatever corrective action you take by definition should fix the something and then stop it from ever happening again.

So, for an audit finding or nonconformance, you would never need to do preventive action steps for that finding/issue because the corrective action steps would capture those for now and the future.

So, preventive actions would only be for things you have never encountered before, otherwise, you would be handling those things under corrective action steps.

Is this good?

Regards,
leaning
Exactly. Preventive actions prevent something that hasn't happened yet, and corrective actions prevent something that has already happened from happening again. You wouldn't do both for the same issue.
 

Top Bottom