Quality Objectives - Is this an audit nonconformity?

[Bill Pflanz]

Bill,

Thanks for giving it a go. Nice work.

The operative word in your requirement is 'documented.' So, you would expect the finding to include something about the objectives not being documented, but that's not exactly the way you wrote it. It seems that the requirement and finding don't match.

By the way, the objectives for this company are documented, with revision status, approval, and all the other hallmarks of document control.

Craig

One of the reasons that I did not use documented in the requirement is that there are objectives documented, the issue is whether those objectives are specifically the quality objectives.

I agree with Randy about the post being a good exercise. The lead auditor does face these type of decisions when reviewing the other auditors findings. The closing meeting will need to be used to clarify what the finding is so that the organization can decide the appropriate corrective action. It could be as simple as re-labeling the objectives but that should be decided by the company not the auditor.

Bill Pflanz

 

[Old Quality Gal]

Observations aren't taken seriously. I stand by my choice for a nonconformity. I see it's "thin" grounds but it is for the better in the long run. I don't see that the standard is adequately addressed with the information presented so far.

Crusader I disagree with your opinion concerning observations. As an auditor if I have raised an Observation previously it carries real weight with me if I come back and find it was not addressed or there was no apparent discussion of what was raised.
If they blow it off and it is still an issue I make sure I get their attention the next time, unfortunately for them. I find most folks do deal with observations especially if the expectation is set and it has been thoroughly explained.
As Management Rep I take them very seriously. We just had our 10 year assessment and before the auditors left the building the CEO had scheduled a meeting the next day to discuss the single observation raised during the audit. At the meeting the next day we acted on the intent of the observation. The auditor had given us good advice ( which we pay them for) and we acted on it.
The emtire company attends the opening and closing meeting so every employee understood what was suggested.
I see your point though. Like my Grandpa said half of working with mules was getting their attention!
Regards,
Mary

 

[AndyN]

The auditor had given us good advice ( which we pay them for) and we acted on it.
The emtire company attends the opening and closing meeting so every employee understood what was suggested.

Mary

What? Is this true? Not hi-jacking this thread, but HuH??????:mg:

I sincerely hope that you are not talking of a third party auditor!

They are not 'paid for their advice', that is a conflict of interest, they should not offer 'suggestions', that the whole company (or anyone else) should hear

Can you make it clear that this isn't an independent 3rd party auditor you're speaking of..........

Andy

 

[Crusader]

As an auditor if I have raised an Observation previously it carries real weight with me if I come back and find it was not addressed or there was no apparent discussion of what was raised.
If they blow it off and it is still an issue I make sure I get their attention the next time, unfortunately for them. I find most folks do deal with observations especially if the expectation is set and it has been thoroughly explained.

Maybe you missed my point? To clarify... The organization may not take the observation serious regardless of how it is explained to them. Unless there is a nonconformity identified (with good reason), the organization has the option to do absolutely nothing. As an auditor, it is also my duty to promote their continuous improvement/effectiveness of their QMS. 5 objectives and only 1 is related to the ISO 9001 Std requirements. To me, that is insufficient evidence.

 

[Randy]

The emtire company attends the opening and closing meeting so every employee understood what was suggested.

That's a pretty bold statement. The entire company attends? I'm at a place right now where there are over 5,000 employees on site alone. It would probably be a bit crowded

 

[ScottK]

Not having read every response I'm sure I'll repeat someone...

I would not write a nonconformance because they seem to have defined and communicated their objectives. This is to the letter of the standard.

I suppose I might look at the last managment review minutes and records of customer freedback and determine if I would give an observation.
If they had significant returns, negative feedback, or other customer issues I would expect these to be in the next round of objectives.

If it still wasn't addressed in the next surveillance I might upgrade to a finding.

 

[SteelMaiden]

OK, just a thought....or maybe a question....

How can anyone judge whether or not Improve sales by 40%, 2. Improve profit by 20%, Reduce energy consumption by $1 million, Reduce loss time accidents to 0 and Reduce product rework to 0.2% of total production will improve customer satisfaction without finding out a little about the organization?

A lot of posts have stated that there is nothing in these objectives that show commitment to customer satisfaction and/or product quality. I say that in some instances these can very well be the best opportunities this particular organization could take? Without some background, i.e. I'm not there to see what they are doing, how they are doing it, why they are doing it, I cannot say that there is a nonconformance. Now, if I ever ran across something like this, I would base my answer on the rest of the evidence I had gathered throughout the audit.

 

[JaneB]

OK, just a thought....or maybe a question....

How can anyone judge whether or not Improve sales by 40%, 2. Improve profit by 20%, Reduce energy consumption by $1 million, Reduce loss time accidents to 0 and Reduce product rework to 0.2% of total production will improve customer satisfaction without finding out a little about the organization? :

Agree strongly.

Without some background, i.e. I'm not there to see what they are doing, how they are doing it, why they are doing it, I cannot say that there is a nonconformance.

Me neither. It's an interesting discussion, but as has already been pointed out, sometimes hypotheticals don't always make for good test cases. Too many unknowns, too much room for assumption and that worst of all things for good auditing: no evidence, a few very basic facts, and not many of those. Given that, I didn't vote.

Now, if I ever ran across something like this, I would base my answer on the rest of the evidence I had gathered throughout the audit.

Yup, me too.

 

[JaneB]

The organization may not take the observation serious regardless of how it is explained to them. Unless there is a nonconformity identified (with good reason), the organization has the option to do absolutely nothing. As an auditor, it is also my duty to promote their continuous improvement/effectiveness of their QMS. 5 objectives and only 1 is related to the ISO 9001 Std requirements. To me, that is insufficient evidence.

Seems a rather harsh approach to me to make something an NCF just because you believe an organisation may not take something seriously otherwise!. (If of course you have specific experience that this one doesn't, then fine).

Perhaps it depends on your view of the purpose of audit, & whether you use a 'softly softly catchee monkee' or 'hit 'em hard & make 'em conform' approach.

Me, I'd go for an observation first (naturally, depending on the issue, the evidence & the seriousness of the case) which I'd discuss. I'd perhaps need to upgrade to nonconformance next audit if I then found there'd been no improvement and/or deterioration.

In my experience, people respond better to that approach. They also respect & appreciate an auditor who behaves in a reasonable fashion infinitely more than the auditors who adopt a rigidly 'right/wrong' approach. Also, my experience with many companies is that they look at whatever's said in the report carefully, including observations / recommendations as well as an actions/nonconformances (or whatever the particular certifier calls them.

 

[Coury Ferguson]

Observations aren't taken seriously. I stand by my choice for a nonconformity. I see it's "thin" grounds but it is for the better in the long run. I don't see that the standard is adequately addressed with the information presented so far.

That really depends on the mind set of the Company (emphasis added). The company I work for takes observations serious just as if the were an NC. Most of the time the observations could lead to an NC, in my opinion.