Quality Objectives - Is this an audit nonconformity?

[MajorBVNaik]

I find that we as Third party auditors face similar situation quite often. I rate this point for discussion vey highly. Now my opinion & reasons for that.

Firstly, I do not think it can be categorised as a NC. Even though the organization may have named as business objectives being improvement objectives they can be classified as quality objectives. For example while auditing I found that the banks have quality objectives as increase in deposits & loans. Now such objecitves are finanacial objectives. But in this case I would consider these objectives as QOs

Secondly, the organization has communicated the QOs to all the employees & this is evident from the fact 15 employees who were interviewed not only knew what the QOs are, they also know as to how their performance contributes to achieving the organizational QOs.

Finally, even if the organization has managed show improvement in three of the QOs it is all right as long as the top management has reviewed the performance during the management review & has made plans to achieving them in future by providing the necessary resources it is conforming situation.

Therefore in the situation it can be claasified as a NC

 

[SteelMaiden]

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.

We do too. We set up a meeting after the audit to compile all of our notes on anything we wrote down during the audit that the auditor made a mention of that could be improved. Then we add the audit report observations once it comes in. Every item is assessed and we either create an action item, an internal CA/PA, or if we choose to not do something, we document why. That way, if the auditor ever brings it up again, we are able to show documented evidence of having reviewed it, and why we chose not to do something differently.

 

[Crusader]

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).

That (above) is not what I said or implied. I never said that I would "make something an NCF because you believe an organization may not take something seriously otherwise" - you turned my words around and said that. I said that I would write a nonconformance because I felt the objectives did not meet ISO requirements.

This is what I said and this is why I voted "Yes": 5 objectives and only 1 is related to the ISO 9001 Std requirements. To me, that is insufficient evidence. The 5 objectives are fine but I was not convinced that they met ISO 9001 as stated in the standard. So, I guess I should not have voted at all and would have had to have more information before making a decision.

 

[Coury Ferguson]

That (above) is not what I said or implied.

This is what I said and this is why I voted "Yes": 5 objectives and only 1 is related to the ISO 9001 Std requirements. To me, that is insufficient evidence. The 5 objectives are fine but I was not convinced that they met ISO 9001 as stated in the standard. So, I guess I should not have voted at all and would have had to have more information before making a decision.

But doesn't the standard (ISO9001) only require that objectives be set, monitored, and any necessary actions be taken if the objectives of the Company aren't met? That is why ISO9001:2000 was written to document the way a company business runs. That is why there are only a minimum of 6 written procedures (not saying that there shouldn't be more based upon criticality of certain processes)?

 

[Crusader]

But doesn't the standard (ISO9001) only require that objectives be set, monitored, and any necessary actions be taken if the objectives of the Company aren't met? That is why ISO9001:2000 was written to document the way a company business runs. That is why there are only a minimum of 6 written procedures (not saying that there shouldn't be more based upon criticality of certain processes)?

Yes, but 5.3, 5.4.1, 7.1 are pretty specific and only 1 of the 5 objectives are related to those clauses. Am I too critical or....what?

 

[Randy]

Yes, but 5.3, 5.4.1, 7.1 are pretty specific and only 1 of the 5 objectives are related to those clauses. Am I too critical or....what?

Too critical maybe

Requirements can come from many areas both internal and external (primarily external from the "external" customer like the ones we are used to seeing)

The "customer" may also have many definitions and can also be internal and external.

Too often the focus is on the external cash paying customer, but this may not always be the case. What if an organization establishes it's QMS for the sole purpose of meeting it's internal needs and achieving internal customer satisfaction? No exchange of money, just the transfer of a service or a commodity internally within a larger organization. Looking at "Q" objectives from a different perspective the ones Craig gave may be as valid as "Q" objectives we may be used to.

 

[Crusader]

Too critical maybe.

Okie dokie. :truce:

 

[Coury Ferguson]

Am I too critical or....what?

I wouldn't say way to critical. The main thing here is that the company has set (documented) objectives/goals that are measured and monitored. This is where I feel that the intent of the standard has been met.

If your company has chosen another way to define this than stay with what the company has defined.

 

[AndyN]

But doesn't the standard (ISO9001) only require that objectives be set, monitored, and any necessary actions be taken if the objectives of the Company aren't met? That is why ISO9001:2000 was written to document the way a company business runs. That is why there are only a minimum of 6 written procedures (not saying that there shouldn't be more based upon criticality of certain processes)?

I'm a bit concerned that this is turning out to be another version of "Say what you do, do what you say". That's not what ISO 9001 is about, never was, isn't and shouldn't be.........I'd like to meet the person who coined that particular phrase one dark night.............

The whole idea is that the organization should understand the position it will take/has in the marketplace (customers' viewpoint). Then, management should set policy and objectives to provide the overall 'direction' towards the customers' viewpoint. Then, the processes are established to meet the customers' needs and the product and process measured against those objectives. Actions are identified if the results fall short, or improved if the customers are happy! Finally, a review and adjustment of poicy and objectives occurs, the cycle repeated.

So set against the op, it seems to me many have lost sight of the reason to be in business........


Andy

 

[Randy]

So set against the op, it seems to me many have lost sight of the reason to be in business........


Andy

Not me...$, and that's the only real reason.