Minor Nonconformity for Lack of Job Descriptions in ISO 9001

[Wes Bucey]

Re: Nonconformity for Lack of Job Descriptions in ISO 9001

The problem of "mission creep" or "gratuitous consulting" or just plain misunderstanding of the Standard by a 3rd party auditor is best resolved at the closing conference when the auditee makes sure he [they?] understand and agree with N/C findings by the auditor.

The first and foremost statement by auditee when confronted with a finding not understood or disputed should be:

SHOW ME THE SHALL!
​

forcing the auditor to cite chapter and verse from the Standard.

Almost always, the Standard clause will clear up a misunderstanding on the auditee's part. If not, then the auditee should continue to press for clarity. If the auditor is unable to defend his interpretation of the clause to the auditee's understanding, then, if nothing else, this will provide a clear trail for dispute arbitration with the auditor's managers.

Obviously, if the auditor is unable to provide a pertinent clause, then he should be asked to remove the N/C.


All in all, long threads like this don't usually develop if the auditee/OP has provided the exact text of the auditor's N/C, and pertinent Standard clause. Our resident Cove professionals can then deliver a fact based response instead of guesses.

 

[sliebman]

Re: Nonconformity for Lack of Job Descriptions in ISO 9001

Good points John,
within our matrix, 5 of the catagories include: communication; process flow thru the shop; problem solving; root cause analysis; and employee relations
with our department heads having shown demonstrated performance in these areas, we feel they are competant to perform reviews on employees

Gusys, he interviewed many employees, asking what the quality policy meant to them in their own words, and he asked questions relating to what their responsibilities were; operators (of their own accord) mentioned that they would go to their supervisor if they had any issues

 

[sliebman]

Re: Nonconformity for Lack of Job Descriptions in ISO 9001

"All in all, long threads like this don't usually develop if the auditee/OP has provided the exact text of the auditor's N/C, and pertinent Standard clause. Our resident Cove professionals can then deliver a fact based response instead of guesses."

see further up in the thread, i did write the exact NC from the auditors report, and in the report, where it states "requirement" , all that he lists is the clause #, he didnt write out the clause. Instead, he used PART of the clause in his nonconformity statement, along with his own interpretation of what it meant

Just to clear things up also, During the audit, we did ask him to show us where it said we had to have job descriptions, and at that time he cited that we had to have them to judge compentency against., for clause 6.2.1
We did tell him we didnt agree with his finding at that point, and at the closing meeting. He told us that we could contest his finding if we choose to.

 

[Big Jim]

Re: Nonconformity for Lack of Job Descriptions in ISO 9001

Just to make it clear from my viewpoint, the auditor did not do an adequate job. The nonconformance was written poorly. I don't know if there is a nonconformance here or not as I was not on site, but it definitely still looks fishy.

The auditor was wrong if he insisted that job descriptions were the only way to show determination of competency needs.

If the OP feels that there is no need to determine competency needs of management, they are wrong. What was shown here looks woefully thin, but without a deeper look I'll leave it at it is very questionable.

The OP should not have signed the acceptance of finding statement as long as there was a finding in dispute. A phone call to the CB's office would have been in order.

There is plenty of blame here to pass it around to all who have participated, including those here who chased one red herring after another by leveling off at the auditor when the main point was that indeed it appeared that the auditee had sever shortcomings that triggered the whole thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

However, let's not forget that one of the things that we are trying to do is to not blame the people, but instead to look for the hole in the system.

From my perspective, the OP needs to determine and install a clear and understandable method of showing that competencies have been determined for all people within the quality management system, and make sure that you can explain it to an auditor.

The auditor apparently needs training on the standard if he believes that job descriptions are the only way to do this.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: Nonconformity for Lack of Job Descriptions in ISO 9001

The problem of "mission creep" or "gratuitous consulting" or just plain misunderstanding of the Standard by a 3rd party auditor is best resolved at the closing conference when the auditee makes sure he [they?] understand and agree with N/C findings by the auditor.

The first and foremost statement by auditee when confronted with a finding not understood or disputed should be:

SHOW ME THE SHALL!​

forcing the auditor to cite chapter and verse from the Standard.

Those with experience in these sorts of things are aware that a third-party auditor's NC statement will always include a reference to the requirements, be they in the standard or the organization's own documents. The problem that arises is almost always not failure to cite the requirement, but the auditor's misunderstanding of it.

<snip>All in all, long threads like this don't usually develop if the auditee/OP has provided the exact text of the auditor's N/C, and pertinent Standard clause. Our resident Cove professionals can then deliver a fact based response instead of guesses.

Please read my first post in this thread and the OP's response.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: Nonconformity for Lack of Job Descriptions in ISO 9001

<snip>From my perspective, the OP needs to determine and install a clear and understandable method of showing that competencies have been determined for all people within the quality management system, and make sure that you can explain it to an auditor.

The auditor apparently needs training on the standard if he believes that job descriptions are the only way to do this.

Emphasis added. A minor quibble: What's needed is to determine the competencies required for each position, and that the competencies of the people that perform the work align with the required competencies for the position. Where the confusion often comes in (and perhaps it's the case with the OP) is that one or the other of those things is done, but not both. Competency requirements for positions is established but there is no evidence that an attempt has been made to ensure the competency of the people filling them, or competency requirements of individuals are determined without regard for whether or not those competencies are suitable for any given position.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Re: Nonconformity for Lack of Job Descriptions in ISO 9001

Outside auditor, it was for our full recert audit. We are ISO 9001, with exception to the design elements. This is a new auditor to us, and he usually audits Aerospace.
He cited 6.2.1 ISO clause, and his finding was
"Base level job descriptions should be developed to meet the requirements of a specific job to show the competency needed on the basis of appropriate education, training, skills and experience in accordance with 6.2.1 General of ISO9001:2008"

Keep in mind, that we do have shop floor employees job descriptions writen in much detail for all employees....plus an org chart....plus a large matrix which lists all employees, and about 20 different catagories/skills that we review every year....

"All in all, long threads like this don't usually develop if the auditee/OP has provided the exact text of the auditor's N/C, and pertinent Standard clause. Our resident Cove professionals can then deliver a fact based response instead of guesses."

see further up in the thread, i did write the exact NC from the auditors report, and in the report, where it states "requirement" , all that he lists is the clause #, he didnt write out the clause. Instead, he used PART of the clause in his nonconformity statement, along with his own interpretation of what it meant

Just to clear things up also, During the audit, we did ask him to show us where it said we had to have job descriptions, and at that time he cited that we had to have them to judge compentency against., for clause 6.2.1
We did tell him we didnt agree with his finding at that point, and at the closing meeting. He told us that we could contest his finding if we choose to.

There is no requirement for a job description to be the vehicle for declaring competency.

Job description is "nice to have"
Competency is "proven to have"

Just because a description says a job holder must be competent does not mean or prove he IS competent - Standard requires organization to have method to determine competency. If there is NO written method to determine competency (doesn't matter how simple or complex the method or even if it actually works to end up with competent personnel), THEN that is what the organization should have received a N/C finding for.

Auditor is "proven" NOT to have competency in interpreting the Standard



For future reference, "full disclosure" in FIRST or "Original Post" is what shortens a thread. I'm not complaining, just explaining for the benefit of other newbies who may read this thread

 

[AndyN]

Re: Nonconformity for Lack of Job Descriptions in ISO 9001

For what it's worth, most job descriptions I've seen are used in hiring and that's all. in today's job market people have to be flexible and therefore a job description is just the basics.

Frankly, they're old fashioned. A job can be better described by evaluating the process and determining competencies. For example, putting in a job description "Must be able to use CRM software" or "Experienced in CRM database" isn't nearly the same in being able to demonstrate competency in the use of such a tool.

I'd avoid them. The auditor has a bias and showed it.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Firstly you don't have to make a fight of this. As informally as you can contact your CB / Registrar and see if they require you to respond to this 'Nonconformity'. My guess is that if you can have an intelligent conversation they'll push it into the long grass.

Outside auditor, it was for our full recert audit. We are ISO 9001, with exception to the design elements. This is a new auditor to us, and he usually audits Aerospace.
He cited 6.2.1 ISO clause, and his finding was
"Base level job descriptions should be developed to meet the requirements of a specific job to show the competency needed on the basis of appropriate education, training, skills and experience in accordance with 6.2.1 General of ISO9001:2008"

This is not a nonconformity. An NC is a statement of what has been found and compares it with the requirement that has to be met. This looks like a piece of advice written as the auditor's expectation.

Keep in mind, that we do have shop floor employees job descriptions writen in much detail for all employees....plus an org chart....plus a large matrix which lists all employees, and about 20 different catagories/skills that we review every year....

OK. If we ignore the NC you should still look at the standard requirements and satisfy yourselves you have an adequate system in place. For every task in the QMS you need to define the competence required - that is what does the individual have to be able to do to get the job done? This applies to shop floor roles, Quality Management and other roles. I don't have enough information from your posts to comment here.

 

[josephsmeadows]

Hi

Thanks all for your comments as i also want to know about Minor Nonconformity for Lack of Job Descriptions in ISO 9001.Thanks for sharing your valuable comments.


Thank you