P
ddhartma said:
Randy,
I'd have to agree with Dave B on this one (not that I haven't agreed with him before
). Why not write it as a major against 4.1 since the organization obviously has not fully "implemented", nor are they "maintaining" a system that meets the requirements of the Standard. :thedeal:
I'd have to agree with Dave B on this one (not that I haven't agreed with him before
). Why not write it as a major against 4.1 since the organization obviously has not fully "implemented", nor are they "maintaining" a system that meets the requirements of the Standard. :thedeal:
I agree we got to look at a system very possitively looking at all black holes, and moles. Having no complex to pass or fail, we search objectively for the conformance to systemic attributes. And till there are found a few (3, unlike that 4500+, multilocational giant) unintentinal error, not leading to a product failure , one could ask for C/A, P/A. More nonconformities beyond deserve an immediate relook, not till the next surveillance.
Clause 4.1 and 7.1 deserve a magnifying look, if there are more than 1 even, non conforances, as they might point towards inadequate planning.
Please correct me as I am not very grey like most of you! ( but for the age)
p thareja