Is a Corrective Action Expected if a Quality Objective is not in compliance?

[Randy]

Yep, Fred Smith may have been a fool, but it payed off and FedEx is doing sort of ok isn't it?

Besides, Fred Smith promoted me to Sgt when I was in the Marines and he was my commander so I'm not gonna bad mouth him too bad

 

[DianaBC]

I agree with Andy that a CA for management would be inappropriate. Just report the finding. There's a good chance that people who don't deserve to be hit over the head will be hit over the head. Depending on the circumstances we can't know about in your company, it might be appropriate to point out that lack of a plan is a large part of the problem.

I think that just reporting the finding won't do it. A review is necessary for determining the circumstances / causes that lead to not meeting the objective. The conclusion that might come up after review can be surprising (eg. the objective was not realistic, factors that were not considered had impact on the objective, so on). An action plan should be set, in accordance with the findings during review.

 

[supadrai]

Trusting your gut could be the most rational way to make decisions

 

[Big Jim]

I think that just reporting the finding won't do it. A review is necessary for determining the circumstances / causes that lead to not meeting the objective. The conclusion that might come up after review can be surprising (eg. the objective was not realistic, factors that were not considered had impact on the objective, so on). An action plan should be set, in accordance with the findings during review.

Interesting opinion.

Keep in mind that it is the organization that gets to choose their objectives, the goals of the objectives, and how they will respond, not auditors.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Interesting opinion.

Keep in mind that it is the organization that gets to choose their objectives, the goals of the objectives, and how they will respond, not auditors.

ISO 17021-1:2015 requires CB auditors to assess the effectiveness of the management system in reaching the objectives, during the surveillance audits. So, objectives, their accomplishment (or not) and management's reaction to the failures in reaching objectives can and must be scrutinized by CB auditors.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I think that just reporting the finding won't do it. A review is necessary for determining the circumstances / causes that lead to not meeting the objective. The conclusion that might come up after review can be surprising (eg. the objective was not realistic, factors that were not considered had impact on the objective, so on). An action plan should be set, in accordance with the findings during review.

There is an assumption that reported findings will be investigated. If they're not, that's a different problem.

 

[Big Jim]

ISO 17021-1:2015 requires CB auditors to assess the effectiveness of the management system in reaching the objectives, during the surveillance audits. So, objectives, their accomplishment (or not) and management's reaction to the failures in reaching objectives can and must be scrutinized by CB auditors.

I'm aware of that, however, that is an overreach. It isn't in ISO 9001:2015. It may dance around it but it just isn't there.

I wrote an NCR a while back on that topic only to have it overturned by the executive committee when the client protested.

 

[John Broomfield]

Has:

Failure to take preventive action when monitoring the achievement of an objective.

...become:

Failure to consider risk when setting a new objective.

?

 

[tony s]

Unmet objectives will probably come to the attention of the top management as per 9.3.2c.2. Is CA required? I don't think so. But actions might be needed as per 9.3.3 ("The outputs of the management review shall include decisions and actions...").

There is a similar thread here with a poll I hope you can share your vote.