As I understand it according to the latest rules (3rd edition) of the ISO/TS you have to show first that there is a conformance to the requirement before you suggets an OFI, in the past most OFI's that I have seen are NC in disguise
Apparently the IATF holds the same viewpoint. I just read the 3rd ed of the Rules (IATF Presentation) and indeed the format put forth to document an OFI is very restrictive.
Further, if they (witness auditors) deem that an OFI should have been an NC, or that it "sounds consultive," it constitutes a
MAJOR NC! On that basis, given how easy it is for auditors to arrive at different interpretations and conclusions, I expect that VERY FEW OFI's will be written going forward.
WHAT A SHAME! Sure, there have been poorly written OFIs, but there have been MANY well written and appropriate OFIs as well, and they have been very useful to robust companies trying to improve their performance.
The whole D**n ISO/TS program is supposed to promote continual improvement, and they cut off one of the arguably most effective ways to promote performance once basic compliance has been achieved. Companies pay $1000's to have CB surveillance audits performed. They have a right to receive value for their investment, beyond a nice pat acknowledgement that they continue to be compliant.
With the huge problems that the Detroit 3, and now the rest of the industry, is struggling to overcome, surely this was not the cause of their problems. I would argue it was effective in solving and improving many processes.
"...3 steps forward, 2 steps back..." is a he**uva way to promote progress or "improve" an industry. They should have written up the blatant bad guys, and promoted the good ones. That would have been "value-added." But, ABs have a history of painting with very broad brushes.
The wrong solution at a very bad time in the industry...