T
tyker
Paul
To make things easier for us, why not share the wording of the non-conformity you just received.
My first difficulty with this is that my dictionary gives slightly different meanings for impartial and objective which makes the ISO 17021 definition difficult to understand.
For example, I can see a situation where two clients are charged different fees for business reasons and that decision would be objective (not influenced by personal feelings) but not impartial (treating all parties equally).
My second difficulty is trying to imagine a situation where I could raise a non-conformity against a perceived lack of objectivity. This suggests a lack of hard evidence which, from the auditing courses I've attended, prevents a nc being recorded. A perceived situation might be an observation but never a nc. But observations can be one of the outputs of an audit therefore it is auditable. But decisions regarding registration aren't made on the basis of observations so my head's hurting.
The pub's open. I agree with you, leave it to the brains to answer.
To make things easier for us, why not share the wording of the non-conformity you just received.
My first difficulty with this is that my dictionary gives slightly different meanings for impartial and objective which makes the ISO 17021 definition difficult to understand.
For example, I can see a situation where two clients are charged different fees for business reasons and that decision would be objective (not influenced by personal feelings) but not impartial (treating all parties equally).
My second difficulty is trying to imagine a situation where I could raise a non-conformity against a perceived lack of objectivity. This suggests a lack of hard evidence which, from the auditing courses I've attended, prevents a nc being recorded. A perceived situation might be an observation but never a nc. But observations can be one of the outputs of an audit therefore it is auditable. But decisions regarding registration aren't made on the basis of observations so my head's hurting.
The pub's open. I agree with you, leave it to the brains to answer.
you could have circular arguments where a CB claims to have satisfied the requirement for impartiality and the AB keeps coming up with other potential "impartialities" and scenarios that have never been seen before but that "might" compromise certification.
