First of all, let me express my gratitudes to you: Doug Tropf, Jane B, AndyN, Bev D and Helmut Jilling...and the rest that are coming along....
It must be remembered, that external auditors (and many internal ones as well) are trained to write a NC with 3 items of information:
1. the violation, failure statement, nonconformance. It must be a clear nonconformance against a requirement. We are often taught to phrase it: "the xyz process was not effective...in meeting its intent." I don't like that wording, but it is how we were taught.
2. The reference in the standard or procedure that was violated, i.e.: cl 6.2.2, or QSP #7.5.001. There has to be a link to a requirement.
3. The actual objective evidence of the incident that was observed, i.e.: "Observed somone dumping the scrap parts into a dumpster, rather than the required bin."
We are required to identify all 3 parts on each NC, which leads to the default statement of, 'xyz process was...not effective."
I was taught the same way but was not taught to write NC saying ".....is not effective", that is why I ask whether it is legitimate to write so.
I always agree and believe that being a good auditor is to surface ineffective practice so that auditee can benefit from this audit process ! But I just could not find anywhere in ISO/TS clauses that allow me to raise NC with "...not effective"! I dare not do so even though I have good intention to help the auditee, that is why I use the approach like Bev D, Andy N, and Doug Tropf.
The auditor that I mentioned is a good auditor in a way that he surfaced many ineffecctive practices or practices that are not carried out properly. But I just found some of the incidences were rather subjective even though with evidences cited. Almost all of the incidence he found, he phrased it with wordings such as "...is not effective", "...not effectively
carried out", "...not effectively
conducted", "...not sufficiently
indicate its effectiveness", "....not effectively
utilised".... though I do not agree with such wordings and found few of the clauses cited may not be exactly correct, but I like him, honestly! Because he dares to face the likelihood of disputes with an intention to make the auditee improved!! Any opinions on those wordings he used?
I just worry that some auditees might dispute and challenge on the legitmacy of using such wordings, unless somewhere in ISO/TS or CB's contract with auditee mentioned clearly that auditor can rightfully use such wordings!
Of course, if there are many areas are ineffective or effectiveness of many controls within auditee's area are insufficient, the auditee organization cannot provide quality assurance to its customer, thus result in a MAJOR failure! ...which I will cite an NC against effectiveness on 1.1 b (but without saying "...not effective"). Is that correct? or Wrong?
Again,

