K
Kevin Tan
Hello, this is my first posting to this forum.
I would like to ask for some help in interpreting the definition of a "major" non-conformity in QS9000 audit. There are 3 definitions given, i.e.
a) the absence or total breakdown of a system to meet a QS 9000 requirement. A number of minor nonconformities against one requirement can represent a total breakdown of the system and thus be considered a major.
b) Any noncompliance that would result in a probable shipment of a nonconforming product. A condition that may result in the failure or materially reduce the usability of the products or services for their intended purpose.
c) A noncompliance that judgement and experience indicate is likely to either result in the failure of the quality system or materially reduce its ability to assure controlled processes and products.
I have problem in interpreting the 2nd and 3rd definition. In particular, the term 'probable', 'may', 'judgement and experience' (whose?) can be quite subjective. It appears to have given the auditors a lot of freedom and discretion in raising a major.
Can anyone offer an insight into this?
Thanks.
Kevin
I would like to ask for some help in interpreting the definition of a "major" non-conformity in QS9000 audit. There are 3 definitions given, i.e.
a) the absence or total breakdown of a system to meet a QS 9000 requirement. A number of minor nonconformities against one requirement can represent a total breakdown of the system and thus be considered a major.
b) Any noncompliance that would result in a probable shipment of a nonconforming product. A condition that may result in the failure or materially reduce the usability of the products or services for their intended purpose.
c) A noncompliance that judgement and experience indicate is likely to either result in the failure of the quality system or materially reduce its ability to assure controlled processes and products.
I have problem in interpreting the 2nd and 3rd definition. In particular, the term 'probable', 'may', 'judgement and experience' (whose?) can be quite subjective. It appears to have given the auditors a lot of freedom and discretion in raising a major.
Can anyone offer an insight into this?
Thanks.
Kevin