Is there a need to tie NC found during internal audit to relevant ISO clauses?

[somerqc]

Stiljoor,

Agreed that we must do what works best. My approach is based on my experience and your approach is based on your experience (assuming our training was very similar).

I have implemented 3 quality systems (registered 2). In the 3 different environments the only consistency was that NOBODY wanted to know what the standard said or what the clause numbers were. In every case, they just wanted to know what it meant in english so they could develop the appropriate procedures/policies/disciplines.

Depending on the environment, I changed how often I even mentioned ISO (the place that I didn't register probably had the best system of the 3 - why? Because management was already following the principles of ISO without knowing the ISO 9001 standard). My current place of employment required the use of the ISO hammer...do I recommend this approach? No...however, it was the only approach that seemed to work with the management that was in place at the time.

Having said this, I could just as easily see an environment where the exact opposite was true (especially in a larger establishment where there are many people the know and understand the standard). Where there are more than 2-3 people that are "experts" in the ISO standard, I could see excellent benefits to referring the clause number (very quick and succinct communication instead of trying to explain the entire process).

Hoping to retire the ISO hammer,

John

 

[harry]

........................I recommend to make references to an ISO and/or any other requirement, when applicable, just for the sake of helping people understand. Too many times, CAR's are submitted, and the receipient does not quite understand why.

Hope this helps a little.

Stijloor.

For internal audits, I ALWAYS reference the process NOT the standard. Why? Because I would like them to read it and understand the impact the finding has or may have on how we do business.

Internal audits are more than just making sure we "do what ISO says"! We are registered and the system has matured to the point where I know am looking for areas to improve processes as opposed to finding areas where the procedures aren't being followed (although I still do find this on occasion).

Regardless, unless there is a procedure that doesn't meet the requirements of the standard OR one doesn't have a procedure that applies to a particular requirement I avoid referencing the actual clauses of the standard.

If I were an internal auditor, I would like to start with by getting familiar with the organization's manual, procedures, WI's etc and be able to reference them during internal audits.

Once I had mastered this skill, then I would like to know the link between the company procedures, WI's etc with the ISO standard and it's various clauses. In this way, I can progress further.

 

[Stijloor]

Stijloor,

Agreed that we must do what works best. My approach is based on my experience and your approach is based on your experience (assuming our training was very similar).

I have implemented 3 quality systems (registered 2). In the 3 different environments the only consistency was that NOBODY wanted to know what the standard said or what the clause numbers were. In every case, they just wanted to know what it meant in english so they could develop the appropriate procedures/policies/disciplines.

Depending on the environment, I changed how often I even mentioned ISO (the place that I didn't register probably had the best system of the 3 - why? Because management was already following the principles of ISO without knowing the ISO 9001 standard). My current place of employment required the use of the ISO hammer...do I recommend this approach? No...however, it was the only approach that seemed to work with the management that was in place at the time.

Having said this, I could just as easily see an environment where the exact opposite was true (especially in a larger establishment where there are many people the know and understand the standard). Where there are more than 2-3 people that are "experts" in the ISO standard, I could see excellent benefits to referring the clause number (very quick and succinct communication instead of trying to explain the entire process).

Hoping to retire the ISO hammer,

John

John,

Thank you for your very thoughtful comments. I appreciate your insights.

Stijloor.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Stiljoor,

Agreed that we must do what works best. My approach is based on my experience and your approach is based on your experience (assuming our training was very similar).

I have implemented 3 quality systems (registered 2). In the 3 different environments the only consistency was that NOBODY wanted to know what the standard said or what the clause numbers were. In every case, they just wanted to know what it meant in english so they could develop the appropriate procedures/policies/disciplines.

Depending on the environment, I changed how often I even mentioned ISO (the place that I didn't register probably had the best system of the 3 - why? Because management was already following the principles of ISO without knowing the ISO 9001 standard). My current place of employment required the use of the ISO hammer...do I recommend this approach? No...however, it was the only approach that seemed to work with the management that was in place at the time.

Having said this, I could just as easily see an environment where the exact opposite was true (especially in a larger establishment where there are many people the know and understand the standard). Where there are more than 2-3 people that are "experts" in the ISO standard, I could see excellent benefits to referring the clause number (very quick and succinct communication instead of trying to explain the entire process).

Hoping to retire the ISO hammer,

John

I agree with "burying the ISO hammer." But, the standard practice is to identify the requirement (can be the ISO standard or the company procedures), identify the nonconformity, and cite the objective evidence of the failure observed.

You can reference the procedure instead of the standard.

You can also paraphrase the reference, in order to make it simpler English, if that suits your purposes better.

No harm done.