Audit NC - No evidence of a full 5 Why Analysis for the Customer Complaint

[krishkaar]

Recently in one of the audits, the auditor raised a Non-conformance as follows:
'No evidence of a full 5 why-why analysis for the customer complaint received ..................
The analysis stops at 2 whys and proposes a corrective action.'
(the action initiated is acceptable to the customer)
We tried to debate the issue with the auditor. But he was firm in raising the NC.

Is he justified?
Is it always a must that a 5 whys- have to be gone thro' without breaking the number of whys?

 

[Stijloor]

Re: 5 Why Analysis

Recently in one of the audits, the auditor raised a Non-conformance as follows:
'No evidence of a full 5 why-why analysis for the customer complaint received ..................
The analysis stops at 2 whys and proposes a corrective action.'
(the action initiated is acceptable to the customer)
We tried to debate the issue with the auditor. But he was firm in raising the NC.

Is he justified?
Is it always a must that a 5 whys- have to be gone thro' without breaking the number of whys?

This is a typical example of an auditor either not understanding the concept of 5-why analysis or getting caught up in the number "5". The number 5 is irrelevant. The intent is to ask "why" a few more times to get beyond the symptoms and getting closer to the real root causes. This may happen after three "Why's", and sometimes after eight "Why's".

Now, having said this, the corrective action (which was accepted by your customer) still needs to demonstrate its effectiveness. If you have evidence that the nonconformity can not recur, you have a case, and I would appeal the nonconformity.

Stijloor.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Is he justified?

No, he isn't. Unless your corrective action process mandates the 5-why technique. It is very frustrating to see rampant incompetence in the auditing profession. Any auditing 101 class teaches you that, a basic requirement for a valid nonconformity is the existence of a requirement. There are a number of techniques to reach a root cause of a problem and the 5 W technique is just one of them. The auditor can not unilaterally impose this technique onto your organization.

If the auditor wants to write your system up for ineffective corrective actions, he must find evidence to that effect.

 

[Stijloor]

No, he isn't. Unless your corrective action process mandates the 5-why technique.

And that may be the sticking point. Organizations inflict a lot of undue pain upon themselves by imposing too specific and too detailed requirements in an effort to look good.... :mg: The OP's predicament may be an example of this.

Stijloor.

 

[AndyN]

Even if the procedure is to require 5 Whys, the point is, as Jan says, not all 5 are always needed!

 

[qusys]

Recently in one of the audits, the auditor raised a Non-conformance as follows:
'No evidence of a full 5 why-why analysis for the customer complaint received ..................
The analysis stops at 2 whys and proposes a corrective action.'
(the action initiated is acceptable to the customer)
We tried to debate the issue with the auditor. But he was firm in raising the NC.

Is he justified?
Is it always a must that a 5 whys- have to be gone thro' without breaking the number of whys?

It seems very strange to me to raise a similar NC. Which kind of audit was it? Registrar?? Please, give us more details.
The 5-Why's does not mandate to ask 5 times why, the number 5 is related to the fact that it is reasonable after 5 times asking why to the previous why you reach the root cause.
Personnaly, I would have asked for the verification ofthe effectiveness of the corrective action and check for evidence that the customer accepted it.
See you

 

[krishkaar]

Thanks for the various replies.

The NC issued (by a auditor under training) is during a Surveillance audit under the scope of ISO 9001:2008.

The issue was taken up with the Certification Body big-wigs and is pending clarification.

For obvious reasons, we are NOT inclined to provide the details of the auditor OR the Registrar.

Thanks for the understanding.

 

[qusys]

Thanks for the various replies.

The NC issued (by a auditor under training) is during a Surveillance audit under the scope of ISO 9001:2008.

The issue was taken up with the Certification Body big-wigs and is pending clarification.

For obvious reasons, we are NOT inclined to provide the details of the auditor OR the Registrar.

Thanks for the understanding.

Hi,
thanks for replying.
Based upon the shared details, I think it will be overridden by CB.
Pls, keep us informed

 

[krishkaar]

Yap, well said.