CAR not closed off by the time next Audit rolls around

[AndyN]

For the most part, internal audits and the results are always perceived as less important even if the auditors are very competent, and the results are meaningful and important. This is a symptom of the illness in the industrialized work (or at least the USA) related to system thinking, corrections, corrective actions, continual improvement, target settings, objectives, priorities, mechanistic thinking, emphasis on short term goals, etc. <snip>

The point being made previously is that often internal auditors write up issues which result in CARs which might be viewed by them as important, but not by management. How many auditors raise issues (and CARs) that are simple symptoms and then overload the corrective action process. How many companies here have multiple overdue CARs because, in most cases, the contents aren't important to management, the business operational effectiveness or customers' satisfaction?

Andy

 

[Dulcie]

What are some of the most effective (in your experience) ways of escalating the importance of nonconformities being addressed?

In my company, I only do the internal audits, but we have several different managements systems that we audit - I'm responsible for auditing 9001, 14001, 22000, and Chain of Custody systems. There is one point person and management rep for all of the systems. There are nonconformities that were identified more than a year ago that still have not been addressed (no investigation done, no root cause identified, no corrections or corrective actions taken). In mho, part of the problem is that we keep adding new requiremetns without maintaining what we've already started - right now, we are adding a milk standard and PAS 223, so I've been told that the open NCs will be taken care of when those certifications are obtained. I'm finding the same issues each time I audit.

Any ideas on how to help get the nonconformities from internal audits addressed?

 

[Shaun D]

Hi Dulcie, The use of the Management Review (MR) process should assist in completion of non conformances, depending on how important management view this process, MR should be completed within a 12 month period, so any NC that have dragged out should be recorded. Any trend should be identified and cause serious concern to senior management. Your external auditor should also be able to review the MR actions and also timely closure of NC. What do your processes state? are there any KPIs relating to NC closures. raising the same issues again and again is a waste of everyones time. You can look at other areas that are fainling and raise the NC on them , look at the Quality objectives, are the NC having a direct effect on the Customer, the process of the audit should enable you to gather the evidence that systematic failing.

 

[drgnrider]

Most CB auditor's I have dealt with don't care about open CA/PA's as long as there is documented progress.

The third section on all of our CA/PA's (basic info and description are one and two) we have a place for "root cause". This is expected to be determined before any action is taken. From Root Cause, we might decide if it requires a 6-Sigma action, it would then get turned over to one of our green-belts with the manager being part of the team.

One of our Management Review items regarding CA/PA's is "open over 30-days". In MR, each OPEN action is discussed as to it's current status, what's been done, what about this, why not, etc. As Management Rep, it is my job to know the status before going in. I am not the one who controls CA/PA's, (that is our QC manager), but I do pester the person they are assigned to for periodic updates. If I need to, I CC the plant director on my status request e-mails.

In six months, IMHO some "progress" should have been made, if even gathering evidence for his root-cause analysis. Check in and see what the assigned manager's reason is for not handling it, aside from "being too busy"? Can he delegate this task to one of his people? Does he not know where/how to start the process?
From this discussion, you could then determine if a new CA is warranted under one of the many clauses others have suggested.

 

[Jen Kirley]

Hi Dulcie,

As a CB auditor I can vouch we do care about closure, especially if the issue has some impact on product service/quality for the customer. But I understand that once containment is put in place, systemic changes can take a long time so yes I can be convinced that showing progress is sufficient. But the organization must exhibit that control has been sustained through its containment measures and unless there's some upheaval or emergency I will expect to see evidence of active work to resolve the issue permanently.

In my experience as internal auditor the top management's commitment to ensure timely closure was the most effective tool in our kit for getting CAs resolved. This itself was, of course only effective because the escalation process was exactingly documented and the CA was issued with due care to ensure the problem was clear, valid, and important enough to put some resources into resolving.

Escalation meant the same CA was issued to the next higher-up person, but we eventually wrote flexibility into the procedure to allow reassignment to the "appropriate" person. That could mean, in effect the CAR had originally been issued to the wrong person though the original owner had agreed to take on the issue for whatever reason. We only did that after discussing it with the original owner, so as to make it clear the action was being taken purely for the benefit of all involved.

If he just said "I don't have time" then the matter can potentially be cited as inadequately resourcing the QMS, though I always described it as, "We can give it to ___, (s)he's the one with the ability to allocate the resources after all." Again, this was a face-saving approach in the event that this person's manager defined his/her priorities as production work and not supporting the QMS. If that was to be the case, said upper manager could have ownership and then delegate the CA to its original owner: a tiresome dance, but the message to upper management is "This thing isn't just going to go away. The QMS also needs attention." Do that enough and the problem tends to get better.