Re: On the job training (OJT)
While it is true that value is in the perspective of the customer, I notice the auditor is not here to defend his comments or writeup. I also remember auditing more than one management rep who did need training in CA, PA and management review.
So while it's true that the audit process is supposed to bring value, I am not yet convinced it has failed to do so. I was not there, so I cannot bring better insight than this.
Jennifer,
You're very correct to assume this since we (still) don't know the exact wording of the NC statement (and at this rate we are unlikely to ever know), but for the sake of argument, if what the OP is saying is correct:
hat was the violeted clause of ISO 9001 that the auditor referred to? 6.2.2
Was this ojt matrix mentioned in a documented procedures of your QMS? No.
Was this an internal requirement of your QMS? No.
I defense already but Auditor told me " my job as issue CAR to you"
summary for this audit I received 11 CARs. eg. record without signature, Not found JD of MD etc.
then identifying things for corrective action like "OJT matrix", "record without signatures", "violates 6.2.2 [without expanding further]", etc. are likely to be indicative of an auditor recording symptomatic issues (which only lead to correction) and not systemic issues (which invoke true root cause analysis), and should automatically bring that auditor's competency into question. The act of writing NC statements should form the basis to (or be identical to) the problem statement on the corrective action request, for a poorly written NC statement is destined to yield poor results in return - therefore not adding value.
I know that you know this already, Jennifer - I'm only saying this for the benefit of our uninformed readers.
Brian
