Quality Objectives - Is this an audit nonconformity?

[fireonce]

Well, I ever heard this happened.If your company has mot been reaching one of quality objectives for five months,it may be a nonconformity.

 

[CliffK]

Sorry for coming on the scene late.

I too fall into the "it depends" camp, but my reasons are a little different from those posted so far. What the original question boils down to is this: are the cited objectives really about quality or not? It depends on how you define quality, doesn't it?

In an ISO 9001-compliant quality system, quality means this, "the degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfills requirements." That's what ISO 9000 says, and it contains the definitions of terms. (Okay, I confess, I'm looking at the 2000 version of the standard. But I bet definition of this term hasn't changed materially.)

The discomfort with the objectives in the example arises because none of them directly address product/process characteristics or product/process requirements. So they're obtuse. But you can't write a nonconformity for obtuseness. Isn't it the job of the auditor to find out how the organization applies these objectives. If, for example, the person in production contributed to increased sales by eliminating defects, then I would say the situation conforms. On the other hand, if the sales department contributed to increased sales by lying about product features, then it's a nonconformity.

 

[CliffK]

Re: Quality Objectives - more interesting questions, perhaps?

This is a follow-on thought to my previous post.

Assuming that we conclude that, for the example company, the objectives qualify as quality objectives.

Assuming also that the objectives address quality indirectly and perhaps not well, a characteristic I called obtuseness in my post.

I would want to know why a company would choose these kinds of obtuse objectives.

And does this company's indirection about quality matters bode well or ill for the company's future?

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: Quality Objectives - more interesting questions, perhaps?

Assuming that we conclude that, for the example company, the objectives qualify as quality objectives.

Assuming also that the objectives address quality indirectly and perhaps not well, a characteristic I called obtuseness in my post.

I think that maybe those two conditions are contradictory. If the objectives qualify as quality objectives, "obtuseness" won't be an issue. The measurement or verification of achievement of objectives should be free from subjectivity. If it's not clear how an objective is to be measured, and/or if the measurements are too subjective, the objective needs to be changed.

I would want to know why a company would choose these kinds of obtuse objectives.

Incompetence is one reason, and management's fear of objective measurement is another. In either case, it boils down to failure of leadership.

And does this company's indirection about quality matters bode well or ill for the company's future?

I can't think of a an instance where indifference or incompetence in such matters is sign of good things to come.

 

[mirrorcrax]

The "Business Objectives" established by the organization do not entirely address all "inherent characteristics" for the "Quality Objectives" requirements including competence of employees, and infrastructure as per ISO9001:2008 Clause 5.4, and related definitions in ISO9000:2005 Clauses 3.1.1 and 3.2.5

 

[ccochran]

Mirrorcrax,

Is this the way you'd write the nonconformity? Here are some questions:

*** What do you mean by 'inherent characteristics'? Those words aren't even used in ISO 9001.

*** Where in ISO 9001 does it say objectives have to be established for competence of employees and infrastructure?

*** You cite ISO 9000. Are you auditing against that standard or ISO 9001?

I believe this nonconformity might generate some confusion and consternation.

Craig

 

[mirrorcrax]

Thanks ccochran for your reply,

1. "inherent characteristics" is part of the definition of quality as described in ISO9000:2005

2. Good point. Though you can't really say that everything in the standard is precisely slice n dice, however, this is how i figured it out, the Quality Objectives definition in ISO9000:2005 says something sought with regards to Quality, and the Quality definition says how inherent characteristics meet requirements, and so what are the inherent characteristics of any organization? ... as for 9001:2000 yeah you're right i can look high and low and will not find a requirement regarding listing objectives for HR or infrastructure, but you could just say that i would theoretically give this answer, though as clearly seen from a lot for replies in real life, you can easily seek more info than having a make belief snap shot of a situation

3. You made it clear that i'm auditing against 9001, and i got it, however, ISO9000:2005 basically provides interpretation of the terms used in 9001 and is the basis for interpreting the requirements.

Yes i do agree with you on the confusion part, but then you're not the customer, and this situation isn't reality, so i suppose those two things might change a lot, especially with the added value .... i would give this as a recommendation but not a non-conformance.

 

[arios]

I don't think there is a non-confomance, but it seems the company is blending Quality-oriented objectives with some which are bussiness or environmental related. My personal preference is to keep them apart at least in my mind because of the scope of the audit.

A. Rios
Mexico

 

[HONEST_123]

May be you are right!!!!

 

[John Broomfield]

Here's an interesting challenge for the fine minds of this forum. It follows on a discussion regarding 'quality objectives.'

You and a partner are performng an ISO 9001 audit on a meduim-sized company that manufacturers widgets. The company has developed and deployed 5 quality objectives:
1. Improve sales by 40%
2. Improve profit by 20%
3. Reduce energy consumption by $1 million
4. Reduce loss time accidents to 0
5. Reduce product rework to 0.2% of total production

Your auditing reveals more facts regarding these objectives:
*** The company does not call their quality objectives by that name. They are called business objectives, and their quality manual defines them as such.
*** You interview 15 people in various departments, and all of them are able to describe the objectives and exactly how they contribute to them in their jobs.
*** Records of management review indicate that the objectives are covered and progress is reviewed.
*** The company has made improvements in 3 of the objectives in the past year. Specific plans are in place to improve the others.

Your partner you’re auditing with wants to write a nonconformity against the quality objectives. You’re considering it. Is there a nonconformity?

If you decide there’s a nonconformity, you must write it in a two part format:

REQUIREMENT: Exactly what they organization has committed itself to doing.

FINDING: Exactly what the organization has done that contradicts the commitment in the requirement.

What is your decision?

Craig

I could not vote because of a missing third button: Insufficient information.

The objectives appear to focus more on the shareholders than traditional customers. Being as shareholders also receive intended product from the company are they customers too?

In looking for evidence of conformity I would compare the business objectives with the quality policy for evidence of focus on the traditional customers.

A potential 5.2 nonconformity.

BTW, an audit finding is a statement of fact (positive or negative) from the audit. So an auditor's nonconformity statement should comprise three parts:

1. REQUIREMENT from the audit criteria
2. EVIDENCE of not meeting the requirement
3. NATURE of the nonconformity (as in 8.3)

...to avoid confusion by misuse of terminology and to more fully guide the auditee's corrective action team.