Boss doesn't want Nonconformances called Nonconformances in Internal Audit Reports

[piningg]

Re: Boss doesn't want Nonconformances called Nonconformances in Internal Audit Report

Take the opportunity to rename them "Conditions Requiring Audit Proactivity." Then, run around saying in a loud voice how much CRAP you found in the area, and how much CRAP is going on.

Think of how the Powerpoints of the audit results will look!

 

[piningg]

Re: Boss doesn't want Nonconformances called Nonconformances in Internal Audit Report

Section 8.2.2 states "The selection of auditors and conduct of audits shall ensure objectivity and impartiality of the audit process". The way we do it here is the Lead Auditor (Quality Systems Mgr), reports to the very top management and doesn't work for the Quality Manager. The Quality Manager and Quality Systems Mgr. work closely together, but occasionally butt heads and keep each other "honest". That way, the auditors (who report to the Quality Systems Mgr during audits) report their findings objectively and impartially. If the QM has a problem with what's found and/or how it was classified, it's discussed with the Quality Sys Mgr (Lead Auditor). I hope this isn't too confusing sounding, it actually works very well and ensures impartiality.

Thats ideal if the company does have QSM but in our case the QM is the QSM.. and the Quality manegemnt representative who faces the external Auditors.. Even me, previously my job was split into two person.. But im doing both of their job right now..
To be honest, I reckon the top man (ops mgr) hired a raw QM that doesnt know how to face the music.

Let see what will happen on our next ext audit..

 

[horselady]

Re: Boss doesn't want Nonconformances called Nonconformances in Internal Audit Report

Agreed. Best of luck to you.

 

[foiley]

Re: Boss doesn't want Nonconformances called Nonconformances in Internal Audit Report

think you may be doing things differently than what is accepted practice by many auditors. There shouldn't be any subjectivity in it. We deal in facts. When you say you define what's acceptable, it sounds like you are defining audit criteria yourself, instead of using the organizations' QMS etc. Auditors don't call the shots, management do. Also, what's to negotiate? If you have facts and present evidence, there's no need for negotiation. Do you ever look at the effectiveness of the QMS? You won't have any problems with negotiation if you include that in your audit.

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree...
Evidence is gained from many different sources. Evidence could be a level of comprehension shown by an employee for example. How are we to decide if the response is adequate?

How are you going to negotiate the scope of an audit?

The shear fact that we look at the effectiveness of anything means that one must make a judgement call. This again will differ between auditors. As long as one has established what they and their audience considers acceptable, one can provide a better service to management to make effective decisions.

 

[John Broomfield]

Re: Boss doesn't want Nonconformances called Nonconformances in Internal Audit Report

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree...
Evidence is gained from many different sources. Evidence could be a level of comprehension shown by an employee for example. How are we to decide if the response is adequate?

How are you going to negotiate the scope of an audit?

The shear fact that we look at the effectiveness of anything means that one must make a judgement call. This again will differ between auditors. As long as one has established what they and their audience considers acceptable, one can provide a better service to management to make effective decisions.

foiley,

The audit objective is determined by the audit client.

The scope of the audit is determined by what is necessary to fulfill the objective.

The audit criteria are known to the auditee during the planning of the audit; if not before.

Effectiveness is determined by how well the conforming process, contract, project or system fulfills its objectives.

Objectives are also audit criteria.

Auditors decide if the employee's response is adequate by comparing the evidence with the audit criteria. If there is evidence of ineffectiveness (nonconformity) the auditor investigates further for evidence of conformity. On not finding this evidence the auditor seeks agreement on the requirement (from the audit criteria) and evidence of the nonconformity with the senior person in the area audited.

You seem to be suggesting auditors make-up the requirements as they go. That approach reminds me of when the "seagulls" used to visit from head office.

John

 

[Sardokar]

Re: Boss doesn't want Nonconformances called Nonconformances in Internal Audit Report

I believe the Main question is "Are corrective actions being taken " on the discovered "Pink elephants " ? tg

if yes then it doesnt matter what they are named

if no then this is by itself a "Pink elephant" and your boss should go and find another job

 

[VBABU]

Re: Boss doesn't want Nonconformances called Nonconformances in Internal Audit Report

Hi ,

All NC ( Internal or External) or not threats for scope of improvement..

By
V.BABU

 

[Olden Grey]

Re: NOn conformance

We changed our NCs to IRNs (Improvement Request Notes). I seemed to receive a better focus for timely closure.

 

[Satigerbrit]

I call this "Ostrich Management" Suggest he leave the business world and becomes a politician.

He's an Ostrich Manager, avoiding the obvious, hiding behind language. Should be a Politician

 

[medical device marci]

Re: Boss doesn't want Nonconformances called Nonconformances in Internal Audit Report

This stops you having to do effectivity checks if you dont call them non conformitites as you dont then need to follow 8.5.2 corrective action in 13485. In some ways I agree, very minor audit findings might just need fixed and closed not left open for effectivity. controversial!