Ok, got a question...
We just finished our preassessment. The lead auditor told us in our closing meeting (notice that there was no discussion of this during the audit, this was out of the blue with no notice of any concerns) that the registrar expects all of our internal audit corrective action requests to be closed out within two months of the date of issuance.
I told them that I would take issue to that requirement. I explained that they could expect our investigation and corrective action plan within our documented time frame (generally 10 working days except for the very most serious). but if we ever choose to have a long range action, maybe the purchase of a new piece of equipment, or custom software design, we would not close out our corrective action request until every action was fully implemented and verified. I explained that for long term actions, we would also have some sort of short range action that would control the problem in the interim. I also explained that in some cases, it might be impossible to implement and verify in 60 days.
Have any of you faced this type of requirement? How did you handle it? The lead auditor told me that they (registrar) expects us to complete those long term under internal corrective actions, not audit corrective actions. Where is the value in having two types of corrective actions to handle one problem, especially since I want to track all of my audit stuff without having to bounce back and forth between internal audit corrective actions, and internal corrective action?
Do registrars really think about this stuff? I see absolutely nothing in the standard that says I have to close out corrective action requests in ANY length of time. All that is said is that we ensure that actions are taken without undue delay to eliminate detected nonconformities and their causes. So, if I submit my investigation and order that new piece of equipment (or whatever, remember this is all theoretical, they did not write a nonconformance) and now have to wait for delivery - 12 weeks, installation - 4 weeks, shakedown and proving of equipment capability - 2 weeks, I am not unduely delaying anything, I'm just being realistic in my scheduling of completion of the action, right?
OK, so I'll get off the soapbox, but this just really griped my goat! All feedback welcomed!
We just finished our preassessment. The lead auditor told us in our closing meeting (notice that there was no discussion of this during the audit, this was out of the blue with no notice of any concerns) that the registrar expects all of our internal audit corrective action requests to be closed out within two months of the date of issuance.
I told them that I would take issue to that requirement. I explained that they could expect our investigation and corrective action plan within our documented time frame (generally 10 working days except for the very most serious). but if we ever choose to have a long range action, maybe the purchase of a new piece of equipment, or custom software design, we would not close out our corrective action request until every action was fully implemented and verified. I explained that for long term actions, we would also have some sort of short range action that would control the problem in the interim. I also explained that in some cases, it might be impossible to implement and verify in 60 days.
Have any of you faced this type of requirement? How did you handle it? The lead auditor told me that they (registrar) expects us to complete those long term under internal corrective actions, not audit corrective actions. Where is the value in having two types of corrective actions to handle one problem, especially since I want to track all of my audit stuff without having to bounce back and forth between internal audit corrective actions, and internal corrective action?
Do registrars really think about this stuff? I see absolutely nothing in the standard that says I have to close out corrective action requests in ANY length of time. All that is said is that we ensure that actions are taken without undue delay to eliminate detected nonconformities and their causes. So, if I submit my investigation and order that new piece of equipment (or whatever, remember this is all theoretical, they did not write a nonconformance) and now have to wait for delivery - 12 weeks, installation - 4 weeks, shakedown and proving of equipment capability - 2 weeks, I am not unduely delaying anything, I'm just being realistic in my scheduling of completion of the action, right?
OK, so I'll get off the soapbox, but this just really griped my goat! All feedback welcomed!