Minor Non-Conformance - Maintenance Records Not Fully Completed

piningg

Involved In Discussions
#1
We are a packaging company and recently audited externally.
We have a maintenance procedure that requires maintenance planner to issue workorder to fitter and once done - paperwork will goes back to the planner to update the system.
External auditor requires all fitter to make a comment, sign and dated all workorder paperwork prior giving to the planner.
Auditor is saying its a traceability issue?
We are a company that produce product so traceability should be on the product raw materials , bar codes etc..
Any comments
 

ScottK

Not out of the crisis
Staff member
Super Moderator
#2
can you tell us what clause the auditor wrote the finding against so we can help with a more precise answer?

It is a traceability issue... but not a product traceability issue. What the auditor is looking for is evidence that the work was completed by tracing the work flow back to the mechanic that performed it. If the mechanic is not signing or initialing the maintenance work order and dating when the work was actually completed then you are missing a piece of evidence that it was completed and completed on-time.
 
#3
Unless your procedure states that all the stuff your auditor said in the NC appeal it. So re-look at your procedures for documents, records and the maintenance stuff itself to make sure of the requirements for dates, signature and everything else...You auditor can't require diddly squat.

Like Scott said traceability is to product, materials and all that, not maintenance paperwork.

At the most it would most likely be a documentation error (NC).

There could be other variables we aren't aware of
 

ScottK

Not out of the crisis
Staff member
Super Moderator
#5
Yes, it's a non-sense finding. Does ISO 9001 even require maintenance?
7.1.3 is what we real world manufacturing practitioners cite for Maintenance. It includes equipment. "the organization shall determine, provide, and maintain…"


So... if I'm auditing a supplier... show me the maintenance schedule and logs for equipment that impacts the conformity of the product or service. Sounds like the OP has a system but needs to clarify how the evidence that the system is being followed is documented.
 

AndyN

A problem shared...
Staff member
Super Moderator
#6
Yes, it's a non-sense finding. Does ISO 9001 even require maintenance?
Sorry, my bad. I should have typed "traceability". It's always been a "when the organization decides" rather than an auditor, since the standard was first released.
 

BradM

Staff member
Admin
#7
hello there!

We have a maintenance procedure that requires maintenance planner to issue workorder to fitter and once done - paperwork will goes back to the planner to update the system.
Let's set aside the auditor/finding thing for a moment. So you issue a work order for someone to complete work. What exactly does the fitter return back to the planner? I would think it would add more value to the maintenance process if the fitter did document their activities, and note who did it and when.

A good maintenance program is worth its weight in gold; and a useless one, is worse than not having one at all in my opinion. It doesn't do any good not to have proper maintenance activities identified, and then a good process to document what got replaced (and with what); what are some potential problem areas; etc. This way, the most correct things are being maintained to reduce downtime; and is more than a paper chase.

External auditor requires all fitter to make a comment, sign and dated all workorder paperwork prior giving to the planner.
Auditor is saying its a traceability issue?
Forgive me for narrowing in on something, but I guess it's the word "require". Why is an auditor requiring anything? They can cite a particular procedure requirement not being fulfilled, or maybe making a recommendation.

Like the others said, a little more detail will help. The finding may be a worthwhile cite; and it could be rubbish. It all depends on how the finding is written up. :agree1:
 

piningg

Involved In Discussions
#9
hello there!



Let's set aside the auditor/finding thing for a moment. So you issue a work order for someone to complete work. What exactly does the fitter return back to the planner? I would think it would add more value to the maintenance process if the fitter did document their activities, and note who did it and when.

A good maintenance program is worth its weight in gold; and a useless one, is worse than not having one at all in my opinion. It doesn't do any good not to have proper maintenance activities identified, and then a good process to document what got replaced (and with what); what are some potential problem areas; etc. This way, the most correct things are being maintained to reduce downtime; and is more than a paper chase.



Forgive me for narrowing in on something, but I guess it's the word "require". Why is an auditor requiring anything? They can cite a particular procedure requirement not being fulfilled, or maybe making a recommendation.

Like the others said, a little more detail will help. The finding may be a worthwhile cite; and it could be rubbish. It all depends on how the finding is written up. :agree1:
Am new into the company barely 3 week. Fitters usually forgets to sign the Worders hence planner/manager verify their job and tick them off the system. No signing required. If our procedure doesnt require any signature by the fitters, does the auditor have the power to give us NCR for that..
Clause8.5.1 control of production and service provision Iso9001.
Am i right thinking that we are not service provision company as we are more into product.
I do understand if we are a service provision Iso9001 company we have to sign on all workorders or any scope of work completion papers.
But we are a manufacturing company. Fitters not signing on workorders but being verified by the planner is our risk qnd should have been an OFI instead of a MInor non conformance.
The auditor is also claiming we are NC to 8.5.2 ID and traecability which i believe is more applicable to our product which we do have and not traceability on who has fixed the machine.
I do understand its ideal for our fitter to sign the paperwork for accountability but not treaceability.
 

Top Bottom