Major vs. Minor for Internal Audits?

[Mike S.]

Do you differentiate between major and minor nonconformances in internal audit reports?

 

[Jim Wynne]

I'm retired now, but I never did. All internal audit NCs should be reviewed for appropriate action, so classification seems to add an unnecessary layer of subjectivity and complication.

 

[Howard Atkins]

I agree with Jim, in my mind this can only cause issues that there will be more "fights" as to the classification rather than the issue itself.
I am even happy with people calling them opportunities for improvement as long as action is taken,
To often there is a reticence to give OFI rather than NC and then ignoring it.
The whole purpose is IMPROVEMENT

 

[qualprod]

Do you differentiate between major and minor nonconformances in internal audit reports?

Never do this,

Do you differentiate between major and minor nonconformances in internal audit reports?

Not recommended in internal, the first fight, is it minor or major?
Let that practice to CBS.

 

[Marc]

Do you differentiate between major and minor nonconformances in internal audit reports?

I determined whether a finding was a systemic problem or a "one off", but never used the terms major or minor.

 

[Mike S.]

Thanks for the input.

My last company differentiated major vs. minor, and my current company does it, but I have been thinking it may be unnecessary or net counterproductive in internal audits.

However, sometimes it does get management's attention more geared toward fixing a problem if they know a registrar auditor would consider something a "major" NC. I'm not defending that attitude/culture, just reporting it.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Thanks for the input.

My last company differentiated major vs. minor, and my current company does it, but I have been thinking it may be unnecessary or net counterproductive in internal audits.

However, sometimes it does get management's attention more geared toward fixing a problem if they know a registrar auditor would consider something a "major" NC. I'm not defending that attitude/culture, just reporting it.

There is no reason why you shouldn't (in the audit report) mention that a CB auditor might classify the finding(s) as major.

 

[outdoorsNW]

We do classify minor and major. A major internal audit finding requires a formal CAR while a minor does not require a formal CAR. I have heard enough of the discussion to say in our case management and process owners are reasonable and thoughtful about what level a finding should be. I have seen roughly the same number of findings upgraded from minor to major as I have seen downgraded from major to minor.

 

[Jim Wynne]

We do classify minor and major. A major internal audit finding requires a formal CAR while a minor does not require a formal CAR. I have heard enough of the discussion to say in our case management and process owners are reasonable and thoughtful about what level a finding should be. I have seen roughly the same number of findings upgraded from minor to major as I have seen downgraded from major to minor.

But what purpose does the distinction serve when all audit NCs must be reviewed for appropriate actions anyway?

 

[Cari Spears]

I've never classified internal CARs as major or minor. Regardless of the reason for the CAR - internal audit finding, product or process nonconformance, whatever happened to initiate the CAR - the problem is evaluated for appropriate actions.
I have a weekly tag up with the heads of manufacturing and inspection to review the status of all open CARs, and a monthly review of CARs with top management. We're more concerned with the impact to our ability to deliver conforming product on-time and our customers' perception of our ability to do so, and we definitely prioritize any CAR that is a result of an escape to the customer; but I also communicate how our registrar would classify nonconformances if they were to find the same problem.