Management Review does not highlight Internal Audit Finding - Root Cause Analysis

[6thsense]

Covers,

Had this finding from a recent audit:

"Minutes of the management review meeting held on 19 August 2009 does not highlight the outstanding nonconformity 009/10 from the internal audit held in Feb 2009 under status of preventive and corrective actions."

My RCA points to poor communication practices.

Any other ideas?

 

[Stijloor]

Re: Root Cause Analysis Help

Covers,

Had this finding from a recent audit:

"Minutes of the management review meeting held on 19 August 2009 does not highlight the outstanding nonconformity 009/10 from the internal audit held in Feb 2009 under status of preventive and corrective actions."

My RCA points to poor communication practices.

Any other ideas?

You could continue by asking: "Why do poor communication practices exist?"

Also, look for patterns of neglect in the CA/PA process.

Stijloor.

 

[qusys]

Re: Root Cause Analysis Help

You should go into deep untill to fix root cause...
In the practice, were the results of the audits ( internal/esternal) evaluated as one of the inputs of the management review?
Did the management forget or have not time enough for this issue or was it only a problem of recording in a minute of the meeting?
Did the auditor check if this was a real imput to the process of management review or merely a question of missing registration with written words?

Covers,

Had this finding from a recent audit:

"Minutes of the management review meeting held on 19 August 2009 does not highlight the outstanding nonconformity 009/10 from the internal audit held in Feb 2009 under status of preventive and corrective actions."

My RCA points to poor communication practices.

Any other ideas?

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Covers,

Had this finding from a recent audit:

"Minutes of the management review meeting held on 19 August 2009 does not highlight the outstanding nonconformity 009/10 from the internal audit held in Feb 2009 under status of preventive and corrective actions."

My RCA points to poor communication practices.

Any other ideas?

I think this is a poorly written nonconfomity. The standards do not require that outstanding nonconformities be highlighted. It requires that the "results of audits" and the "status of CA/PAs" be inputs for review. The standards leave a great deal of leeway for the organizations to decide how to act on those inputs. If however your internal procedure defines that you must highlight them, then you made it a requirement. Otherwise, the auditor is overreaching and should clarify the requirement and nonconformity.

 

[AndyN]

Indeed, Helmut. Given that there may be an English language use issue to consider, this NC is weak at best.

I wouldn't go overboard with root cause before we understand what the nc was about. Apart from other reasons, management often 'overlook' an nc simply because it's nothing they understand or get excited about......

Please post the nc that was not considered in the management review and we can see what's going on!

The external auditor needs to dig into the situation further (and report what they've found) to have a value-added findings here.

 

[Kales Veggie]

Covers,

Had this finding from a recent audit:

"Minutes of the management review meeting held on 19 August 2009 does not highlight the outstanding nonconformity 009/10 from the internal audit held in Feb 2009 under status of preventive and corrective actions."

My RCA points to poor communication practices.

Any other ideas?

Can you tell us against what clause of the standard it was written?

Is it a standard practice for your company to "highlight" audit results?

If it is a true N/C, you should dig deeper than "communication practices", which is really vague. Investigate how the data for the M/R is gathered, presented and summarized in the minutes. Also take a look at your M/R procedure to see if it is too detailed (you can do more than the standard, but it is not a requirement).

 

[Migre]

Covers,

Had this finding from a recent audit:

"Minutes of the management review meeting held on 19 August 2009 does not highlight the outstanding nonconformity 009/10 from the internal audit held in Feb 2009 under status of preventive and corrective actions."

My RCA points to poor communication practices.

Any other ideas?

For me there are 2 potential issues here:

1) The detail within your management review procedure. Does it state that every nonconformity (whether outstanding or otherwise) be reviewed? If so, then the finding would appear to be valid (despite this being a seemingly unusual inclusion within the procedure). If not, the finding would appear to be harsh (unless the nonconformity is of a severe nature and would require review despite what your procedure states).

2) The non-conformance itself. Is it outstanding due to a valid reason (i.e. a lengthy period of time is needed to resolve the issue) or has it simply been lost in the system and forgotten about? If the latter, you need to determine why by carrying out the root cause analysis suggested elsewhere in this topic.

Which is the real issue for you here? An overtly strict/detailed management review procedure, an over-zealous auditor or the discovery of a genuine issue which you need to get to the bottom of?

 

[prototyper]

What do your procedures say about audit non conformance closure?
A non conformance still open after 6 months seems excessive. If this happens regularly, maybe there should be closer scrutiny of audits during management review.

 

[Big Jim]

I think this is a poorly written nonconfomity. The standards do not require that outstanding nonconformities be highlighted. It requires that the "results of audits" and the "status of CA/PAs" be inputs for review. The standards leave a great deal of leeway for the organizations to decide how to act on those inputs. If however your internal procedure defines that you must highlight them, then you made it a requirement. Otherwise, the auditor is overreaching and should clarify the requirement and nonconformity.

I absolutely agree. This auditor is making up his own rules.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I think this is a poorly written nonconfomity. The standards do not require that outstanding nonconformities be highlighted. It requires that the "results of audits" and the "status of CA/PAs" be inputs for review. The standards leave a great deal of leeway for the organizations to decide how to act on those inputs. If however your internal procedure defines that you must highlight them, then you made it a requirement. Otherwise, the auditor is overreaching and should clarify the requirement and nonconformity.

We don't even know what "highlight" means in this context, and use of that word might be the result of translation from another language. I think that if there is no evidence that the CA in question was a part of input to the meeting, or was and there's no record of it being reviewed, there could be a problem. I agree that the OP should backtrack and look at the requirements before formalizing anything. It could be that while there was no requirement for the CA to be reviewed (or "highlighted," whatever that means), it should have been, so maybe something can be improved.