Effect of Major and Minor NonConformances during Registration audit - TS 16949

[AndyN]

No problem Dave and thanks for the comment.

 

[Umang Vidyarthi]

To further help out, the requirements for grading NC's are nothing to do with ISO 9000(or as far as I can remember, the accreditation rules/requirements of ISO/IEC 17021 (or the 'old' Guide 62). It's the individual registrars' interpretation, whereas, the IATF lay down the specifics. Indeed, many ISO 9000 registrars don't use 'major' and 'minor'.

The practice of clearing a minor NC during the audit is generally frowned on, by most accredited registrars (not auditors), because in principle a finding should lead to corrective action, not correction (that's not my view, BTW)

Even in the case of minor NC the corrective action followed by preventive action is a must,in absence of which 'correction'(interim/premilinary solution) alone is of no value.Correct me if I am wrong.

Umang

 

[AndyN]

Even in the case of minor NC the corrective action followed by preventive action is a must,in absence of which 'correction'(interim/premilinary solution) alone is of no value.Correct me if I am wrong.

Umang

That is totally dependent on the contents of the NC - just because it's written as an NC (and no-one argues against it), doesn't mean it needs or justifies anything other than a simple fix...........

 

[D.Scott]

Even in the case of minor NC the corrective action followed by preventive action is a must,in absence of which 'correction'(interim/premilinary solution) alone is of no value.Correct me if I am wrong.

Umang

I don't think you are wrong.

Dave

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Andy! you got it; Thanks for getting my point of view.

I completely understand the difference between major and Minor, but why IATF categories the NC 's in Major and Minor, when in both cases the audittee would not get the certification and furthermore this is contrary to ISO 9000 . If there is no difference then IATF can refer only one type of NC.
This is just food for thoughts

The automotive customers, especially the Big 3 have defined majors and minors as far back as QS-9000 and ISO 9001. I thought it derived from Guide 62, but I don't have a copy with me. I know it was mandatory in QS and TS.

TS further said nonconformities can no longer be closed on site during an audit. The concern was many companies just rushed solution sinto place, without giving appropriate thought and implementation.

Minors frequently are closed offsite. Most Major NC's require a return visit.

There are a lot of differences between Majors and Minors and I think it is very logical to define them as such. A breakdown in a system should not be viewed as a single lapse in a small requirement.

 

[AndyN]

Refering to my handy-dandy pocket copy of ISO/IEC 17021 (which replaces the Guide 62), I couldn't find any references to grading non-conformances.

 

[Stijloor]

Refering to my handy-dandy pocket copy of ISO/IEC 17021 (which replaces the Guide 62), I couldn't find any references to grading non-conformances.

That's correct.

ISO 19011, clause 6.5.5 states: "Nonconformities may be graded." No specific information on the criteria for "Major" or "Minor" nonconformities.

 

[Umang Vidyarthi]

That's correct.

ISO 19011, clause 6.5.5 states: "Nonconformities may be graded." No specific information on the criteria for "Major" or "Minor" nonconformities.

The clause cited ibid,does not make anybody wiser.May some one bring out the general criteron for gradation,if it exists.
Umang

 

[Sidney Vianna]

We had a similar discussion in this thread.

A breakdown in a system should not be viewed as a single lapse in a small requirement.

I agree that system breakdowns are serious and should be treated differently than minor non-conformities, but our accredited certification process treats both minors and majors as requiring corrective actions. So, following the logic, let's imagine that a third-party audit finds a few obsolete documents or a small number of gages being used with expired calibration dates. Both instances would normally be categorized as minor non-conformities and expected to be dealt with via a corrective action. Realistically, it is very likely that such issues will recur in the future, even though organizations "implement corrective actions" to fix these minor problems. So either, we, as quality professionals are not very serious about corrective actions, or, we should not be issuing corrective action requests to minor infractions that are bound to repeat themselves.

 

[Stijloor]

The clause cited ibid,does not make anybody wiser.May some one bring out the general criteron for gradation,if it exists.
Umang

I know, I know.... I was just stating what I found and confirm that there are no references in ISO 17021 nor ISO 19011. Just trying to help Umang....

Stijloor.