No More Observations? Findings vs. Observations

A

anonymous

#1
Quite recently, I read or heard that the latest revision of the audit standard (ISO 19011, I think ?) will no longer have "observations" and all negative findings will require a corrective action. Help!! Somebody please tell me I'm wrong.

------------------
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
A

Aaron Lupo

#2
Ross,

ISO 19011 has not been released (maybe next year). I have the 10/1/99 draft of 19011 and I do not see anything in it about all negative findings will require requiring a corrective action, where did you see this?
 
R

Ross Simpson

#3
ISOGUY: As I said, can't remember whether I read it Or heard it. Hell, I'm lucky I remember where the ON switch is for this computer!
All kidding aside, I saw it or heard it some where. Maybe it's a new auditors requirement to create even MORE paper work for these poor guys.
Will see if I can find or remember the source. Let's hope I'm all wet !

------------------
 

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#4
The following from the ISO listserve may shed some light on this topic:
*******************************

Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 14:39:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Findings vs. Observations /Tingerthal/Arter

From: Dennis Arter

Tom Tingerthal recently wrote:

> When there is a "finding" during an audit, a corrective action is
> created. When there is an "observation" we use the same forms and
> distribution methods to get the problem addressed.
>
> The questions is, does the observation require action to be
> taken?

As of today, there is no accepted international definition of the word "finding." The draft ISO 19011 is attempting to solve this difficulty, but it may be another year in committee.

As many know, quality (and environmental) auditing has its roots in financial auditing. The standards for financial auditors and their professional societies use the term finding, but don't define it. When you analyze their usage, though, you will see that it means something bad. When I wrote my book back in 1987, I did a thorough literature search and found but one definition of the word (in an obscure government regulation for nuclear research). So, I made up a definition and put it in the back of my book! I said it was a) bad, b) violated a requirement, and c) was significant.

Around 1989, the ASQ Quality Audit Technical Committee (now Quality Audit Division) was working on the Certification for Quality Auditors. We argued into the night, but finally came up with: "A conclusion of importance based on observation(s)." This was done to account for those organizations who used "finding" in a positive manner. The definition was published in the CQA exam brochure.

In 1994, when we started the revisions to ISO 10011 (the quality auditing standard), we came up with: "results of the evaluation of the collected audit evidence compared against the agreed criteria, and which provide the basis for the audit report." Ugh! As you know, that effort was stopped in 1998, when international pressure built for a combined quality and environmental auditing standard, ISO 19011.

The current draft of 19011 says that a finding is "results of the evaluation of the collected audit evidence against audit criteria." The note to this definition states that "audit findings can indicate either conformity or nonconformity with audit criteria or opportunities for improvement."

It is becoming clear to many that an audit finding, while good or bad, needs to focus on the bigger picture, rather than the symptoms of the condition. In the class I teach, I state that findings must contain two elements: cause and effect.

(I'm almost done here.)

"Observations" are even even more screwed up! In the beginning days of financial auditing, one would gather facts (observations) and then draw conclusions (findings) from those facts. Over the years, though, observations have morphed into a sort of mini- finding. As though the auditor is saying, "I can't quite write you up, but I believe this is wrong." Even though we always said, "This is not a violation," the implication was, "You better look at this or I'm gonna make your life miserable."

Many auditors saw this sorry state and stopped using the term "observation" in the mid-1990s. When we started drafting the ISO 10011 revisions and then the ISO 19011 document, we removed the term. In its place, we use the term "objective evidence." We hope this will reduce the amount of confusion out there and "observations" will slowly fade away.

Finally, the answer to your question. Because neither of these terms are defined, you may treat "findings and observations" however you decide in your own quality/environmental management system manuals and procedures. The third-party registrars must accept your approach. Likewise, the registrars can use "findings and observations" however they please. You hired them and you can fire them.

Dennis
***********************

Also see: QS/ISO 9000 Major vs. Minor Nonconformances
and
Difference between major, Minor, finding and Observation in relation to a CAR
 

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#5
It's been a few years... What is an 'Observation' today - May 2004? Did this evolve to 'Opportunity for Improvement'?
 
#6
Marc said:
It's been a few years... What is an 'Observation' today - May 2004? Did this evolve to 'Opportunity for Improvement'?
I suppose it did... Internally we don't use observations. It's either a NC or not... Our registrar on the other hand, is still using them.

Neither 9001:2000, 14001:1996 nor 19011:2002 mentions observations in this context.

/Claes

 
Q

qawatchdog

#7
I am requesting any updated info on this very old thread on ISO19011. Mainly comparison of Findings to Observations. Yes, this is still an ongoing issue that periodically rears its ugly head. I am soliciting any germain threads or current discussion.
cheers
QAW
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#8
I am requesting any updated info on this very old thread on ISO19011. Mainly comparison of Findings to Observations. Yes, this is still an ongoing issue that periodically rears its ugly head. I am soliciting any germain threads or current discussion.
cheers
QAW
What, specifically, is your interest?* There's a current thread where the OP reports that his CB is using "area of concern" to describe what once was called a "minor" nonconformity.

ETA: *It occurred to me after I hit the "submit" button that my question should have been "What, specifically, is your area of concern?" :tg:
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#9
I suppose it did... Internally we don't use observations. It's either a NC or not... Our registrar on the other hand, is still using them.

Neither 9001:2000, 14001:1996 nor 19011:2002 mentions observations in this context.

/Claes
On an internal basis, why limit it? I teach 4 types of findings to internal auditors:

Corrective Actions: Some things are failures to comply with requirements and deserve a nonconformity.

Preventive Actions: Some things are potential failures to comply with requirements and deserve a Preventive Action. You know, that thing so many people struggle to understand and write?

Improvement Opportunity: Something which is good, but could be better. NOT dealing with a failure. Not mandatory.

(edit) "Corrections:" ISO definitions mention "Corrections" and "Corrective Actions." Corrections are intended for small little fix-it things. If it does not need formal root cause analysis and is a couple minute simple little fix, just fix it. Don't fill out the full CA format.

My "students" have found this to be very beneficial for them and their managers like it too.
 
Last edited:

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#10
On an internal basis, why limit it? I teach 4 types of findings to internal auditors:

Corrective Actions: Some things are failures to comply with requirements and deserve a nonconformity.

Preventive Actions: Some things are potential failures to comply with requirements and deserve a Preventive Action. You know, that thing so many people struggle to understand and write?

Improvement Opportunity: Something which is good, but could be better. NOT dealing with a failure. Not mandatory.

My "students" have found this to be very beneficial for them and their managers like it too.
What's the fourth one?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
K Gage R&R with more than 3 appraisers Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
K More than one importer for the same device EU Medical Device Regulations 3
S Two or more predicates suitable? 510K submission US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 5
E Received a Major finding during IATF Surveillance audit for loss of BIQS Level 3 (more than 6 SPPS in 6 months)...how should we address SYSTEMIC CA? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 11
L Which one is more important for FMEA CC or SC, FMEA and Control Plans 6
M UDI-PI on a package that contains more devices EU Medical Device Regulations 3
M Informational Update – MDR and IVDR implementing measures rolling plan – 2 more NBs designated under the new regulations Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
B More than one Risk Report per Medical Device ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 3
Ed Panek Can a single supplier fit two or more categories for risk? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
Sidney Vianna More allegations of unethical behavior in the Aerospace Sector AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 1
N Technical File Reviewer has requested more testing to ISO 10993 Other Medical Device Related Standards 10
M Informational FDA Panel: Too early to pull textured breast implants over cancer risk, need more data Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M BSI – Want to know more about the Notified Body? Registrars and Notified Bodies 0
Marc Renewables, led by wind, provided more power than coal in Germany in 2018 Sustainability, Green Initiatives and Ecology 2
Marc Forums - "Watching" One or More Forums for New Threads and New Posts Elsmar Xenforo Forum Software Instructions and Help 1
A MSA When an Instrument Measures More than One Parameter Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 7
M Vernier Calibrations & more General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 5
bobdoering Contingency Plans Likely to be Scrutinized More Now IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 9
Q How can you justify using a more accurate Pin Gage class? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 16
JoshuaFroud Addressing wet ink signatures when more than one site is involved 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 8
G More on IATF 8.5.6.1.1 - Temporary Change of Process Controls IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
Sidney Vianna IAF Ruling - No more ISO 9001:2008 nor ISO 14001:2004 audits after 2018-03-15 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
P Tool for Measuring - Do I have to do more than one Gage R&R for the PPAP? Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
T ISO 14001:2015 cover more than 1 company or business unit? ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 13
L How to get more Auditing Experience Career and Occupation Discussions 11
C Squeeze in one more - Rate of failure Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 6
M Is it possible to have more than one authorized representative in Saudi Arabia? Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 6
somashekar People are more than just ?resources? Book, Video, Blog and Web Site Reviews and Recommendations 1
ncwalker More Central Limit Theorem Questions Six Sigma 4
M More than canned audit check-sheets? Auditing the Engineering Department Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 5
Marc Explore - Movies, audios and more! An Online Library Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 2
B Share ideas to make Management Review more interesting Management Review Meetings and related Processes 4
Wes Bucey More Phishing Emails! Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 7
O Rebuilding Quality Manual to be more relevant to our business Quality Management System (QMS) Manuals 7
Stijloor Toyota recalls more than 6 million vehicles. World News 5
cscalise Separate Forms or Procedure Attachments - What's more common? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 2
T Promotion with Less Pay and more hours Career and Occupation Discussions 37
S FDA CDRH Premarket Review Submission Cover Sheet - adding more products 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
T More than One Original Test Report - Original Print General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 4
Hershal More about Teddy bears Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 0
B Calculating Combined DPMO and Sigma Level for Two or More Different Work Areas Six Sigma 3
G More than one Marketing Authorization Holder (MAH) in Japan Japan Medical Device Regulations 2
M Is information required on more than one side of box? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
J Attribute Data MSA for more than 3 Operators Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 4
M ISO/TS 16949:2009 Follow-up Audit Visits to create more Revenue IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12
G Improve final GR&R value by taking average of more measurements? Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 11
K Calibration Standards - Master weight having more tolerance than our gram scale General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 3
S K-stand definition and more information about it Manufacturing and Related Processes 1
Q Dixon city comptroller ?misappropriated? more than $53 million World News 2
V Plotting MTBF for More Systems in a Single Chart using Meridium 3.4.2 Software Reliability Analysis - Predictions, Testing and Standards 2

Similar threads

Top Bottom