Non-Conformance vs OFI -- your best descriptions

[Mike S.]

I'm leaning this way, as the default question that I get for every OFI is "so I don't HAVE to do this, right...?"

Sometimes I get that. Sometimes I get "hey, that's a great idea" and they implement it.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Do not bother with OFIs.

Report every system weaknesses as a nonconformity.

...including the systems that rely on auditors to initiate improvements.

I'm leaning this way, as the default question that I get for every OFI is "so I don't HAVE to do this, right...?"

If an internal audit system is working properly, the results should be acted upon at a level with sufficient responsibility and authority to make things happen. The audit results should feed into management review, in other words, so that management will have to make a decision as to how to handle OFIs one way or another.

 

[Tyranna]

I write OFIs as opportunities for improvement in processes that I see while auditing. Those opportunities may save costs, resources such as supplies, parts, etc or manpower.

 

[John Broomfield]

I write OFIs as opportunities for improvement in processes that I see while auditing. Those opportunities may save costs, resources such as supplies, parts, etc or manpower.

Do you audit the system to show why it failed to initiate the improvements you’d like to suggest?

 

[Randy]

The external auditor kicked my ass for not having references to the actual standard in my audit forms.

Tell your auditor to bite you (I was actually told that once, we laughed and moved on).

As has been stated, it's not required that you even mention the relevant standard itself (Did a certification just before Christmas and there was no mention anywhere of the standard we were going by, raised questions, but not a problem).

 

[Randy]

On the OFI subject..........There's a major, major Petrochemical company (it's research & product development portion) that doesn't use the term nonconformity, in all cases of something negative or questionable (or broken) they use OFI as a means of reducing negativity and all OFI's are handled as if they were NC's, every one of them (cause, investigation, short term & long term fix/solution).. Kinda fun and always something to review.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I write OFIs as opportunities for improvement in processes that I see while auditing. Those opportunities may save costs, resources such as supplies, parts, etc or manpower.

Do you audit the system to show why it failed to initiate the improvements you’d like to suggest?

Why do you assume that if auditors are sources of suggestions for improvement, that no one else is active in suggestions for improvement?

 

[Tyranna]

Do you audit the system to show why it failed to initiate the improvements you’d like to suggest?

Hi,
Before each audit, I review the previous audit report and note (as follow-up) the previous NCs and also observations and OFIs. I will close out the NCs, review the observations to see if improvements have been made or if the process has taken a turn for the worse. (sometimes new NCs come out of this). I do question why noted OFIs were not enacted and jot down the reasoning. Sometimes it can be something as simple as "gee whiz, this is going to cost us a 1/2 million to implement so not feasible", lol and other times I find that my recommendations were enacted and did save time, money, resources.

I include positive improvements in my reports. No one wants to get an audit report full of negative things - so improvements undertaken by the audit area are included as the first item in my report. A little bit of "shining the light" on achievements seems to make the audit process much more acceptable.

 

[John Broomfield]

Yes, some findings are positive and we should ensure these appear in the report. Follow up is important too.

What interests me is an auditor sensing an opportunity for improvement but ignoring why the system itself had not already done this.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

What interests me is an auditor sensing an opportunity for improvement but ignoring why the system itself had not already done this.

No disrespect meant, but that is a ludicrous proposition. At least, in the context of the traditional management system audits that we are normally used to. To infer that auditors, who spend a couple of days per year at an organization, and due to the commoditization trend, are forced to work more, for less, driving some of the real talent out of the auditing pool, are now supposed to delve on why their perceived OFI's were not identified and acted upon, before s/he observed them, is crazy.

That is totally outside of the scope of the traditional management system auditing protocol. Can you imagine when an auditor is assessing the control of nonconforming products and start wondering and asking questions why did the organization allow all of those defective products to be produced? Auditors are not there to replace the organization leadership and I am ALWAYS skeptical of auditors who brag about being able to find CLEAR OFI's that will save the organization tons of money. If that were the case, they should quit being a management system auditor and become a high-paid consultant.