RCCA per AS9100D 7.5.2

#1
Nonconformance FINDING: When reviewing procedure for competence and Awareness, the organization had made changes to the document number in the master log and did NOT reflect the change on the actual document,.

Root cause: Why: At the time of the audit the procedure for Competence and Awareness was under improvement per AS9100D section 10.

Why: The condition of the procedure in the found state detected opportunities for improvement of the performance and effectiveness of the
QMS per AS9100D section 10.1(c)

Why: Personnel responsible did NOT make available and suitable for use where and when it is needed per AS9100D section 7.5.3.1 (a)

Why: Personnel responsible misinterpreted the standard requirements.

Why: Personnel responsible was unaware of the clause finding.

Corrective Action: Responsible personnel will undergo re-training of AS9100D lead auditor.

Will this be accepted by the technical reviewer???

Thank you.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#2
Nonconformance FINDING: When reviewing procedure for competence and Awareness, the organization had made changes to the document number in the master log and did NOT reflect the change on the actual document,.
Wow....how nonsensical auditing is becoming. How is that, in any way, impacting the organization's performance, product integrity or anything else of relevance? If this is the best an aerospace auditor can report as a nonconformity, s/he should realize how irrelevant they are.

Will this be accepted by the technical reviewer???
Since the CB auditor is pretending to write a nonconformity, you can pretend to do RCCA...:naughty:
 

Ninja

Looking for Reality
Trusted Information Resource
#3
Sooooo, root cause was human error, and CA is retraining?
Pretty sure that situation has been handled ad nauseum around here... have a search or three on those topics.

That said, it sounds like a pretty flimsy finding...two document numbers in two different places didn't match, but no finding on the doc itself....if that was your worst finding, you done good.

If it were me (pending compliance of this approach with AS9100), the root cause would be that I duplicated the work by recording the doc number in two places, and the CA would be to not require that duplication of effort any longer.
 
Last edited:

Cari Spears

Super Moderator
Staff member
Super Moderator
#7
If you have already accepted this nonconformance, or have chosen to not contest it, I would focus my corrective action on how effectively I'm finding and purging old versions of documents as part of my document change control process.
 

John Predmore

Trusted Information Resource
#8
I am confused about the timing of events and the logical connection between the 5 Whys. There was an audit. This FINDING was uncovered in the CB review following the audit, is that right? At the time of the audit, it was discovered the master log did not reflect the actual document, or was that discrepancy discovered in the CB review which came after the audit?

I recommend whatever cause you label Root Cause is the one identified at the bottom of the 5-Why's (you reach the Root by digging deeper!) . So in this case, the Root Cause was personnel responsible were unaware of the finding. The Root Cause generally leads directly to the Corrective Action, i.e. once you conclude responsible people were unaware, then training is one way to make people aware.

IMO, the statement the responsible people were unaware of the finding does not explain logically why the statement above occurred as a result, the responsible people misinterpreted the standard requirements. It does not follow that people were unaware therefore they misinterpreted. When the 5-Whys flow logically, you should be able to read top-down and each line answers Why?, or read bottom-up and each line explains the line below it "Therefore...". This is a check that the logic connecting the causal sequence is solid, with no gaps in logic.

To improve readability, to help a reader follow the logic, instead of a single word Why? at each level, I prefer to spell-out each Why question before the question is answered. For example, expanding the second word Why to reference the first line answer, "Why were opportunities for improvement detected? Answer: "People responsible did NOT make [the procedure??] available and suitable for use..." By making the wording of the Why question explicit, you can see gaps in the logical connection from the situation to the explanation. I think this is more than personal preference, I think it improves readability.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#9
This FINDING was uncovered in the CB review following the audit, is that right?
I don’t understand where you getting this from. The CB auditor wrote a nonconformity for a mismatch in the numbering of a procedure and the master document list. A totally inconsequential issue, which, at best, should have been reported as an observation, but the nonconformity quota by auditors might be at play here. Now the OP has to pretend to do a root cause analysis for a mickeymouse nonconformity to reach a corrective action that will be accepted by the technical reviewer at the CB.

It is incredibly frustrating to realize that an organization pays thousands of dollars for an audit and get this type of useless return. Some auditors make themselves irrelevant. Too bad we have strayed so far from the original intent of third party auditing.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
E Nadcap Major Audit Finding Question - Effectiveness of our RCCA AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 11
E RCCA (Root Cause Corrective Action) Training Materials Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 8
D CPAS - RCCA - 8-D Report Requirements Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 3
S Discussion on OBL and OEM test data for submission as per new EUMDR EU Medical Device Regulations 0
B Validating calibration certificate as per API Q1 General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 9
P Demonstrate shelf life per ISO 11140-1 Other Medical Device Related Standards 0
Watchcat One UDI per country? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
J QTC Requirement as per API 6A-21st Edition Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 1
M R&R Studies - how many? per product? Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 3
M Summative evaluation: how many sample per participant? IEC 62366 - Medical Device Usability Engineering 5
M Validation of Data verification tool per 21 CFR 820 Quality Assurance and Compliance Software Tools and Solutions 1
D How to testing of Pressure relief valve as per API 6D ? Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 1
R Flammability requirements for applied parts as per 60601-1 IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 4
Jim Wynne Most Important Manufacturing KPI, per Oracle Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 3
J Technical Documentation as per MDR / subpoint 6.1 EU Medical Device Regulations 3
Q EPA PFAS - Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
R Cost per test tool/formula Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 1
R Cost per test tool/formula Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 1
K RPN/ KC) per AIAG FMEA and Control Plans 0
ebrahim QMS as per ISO 13485, Clause 4.2 Requirements for regulatory purposes for Medical Devices Authorized Representatives. ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
P Should eIFU link per ISO 15223-1:2016 be added to labels out of scope of Reg 207/2012? EU Medical Device Regulations 1
S Bend allowance formula to calculate per degree per radii Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
R Risk control measures as per ISO 14971 ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 6
D Is PMCF really a continuous activity per Annex XIV,Part B? EU Medical Device Regulations 5
K New supplier audit as per V3.1 by French Automotive OEM General Auditing Discussions 2
S Fogging test as per DIN 75201(50ug/g ) VDA Standards - Germany's Automotive Standards 3
Sravan Manchikanti Software Risk Management & probability of occurrence as per IEC 62304 IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 8
K Applicability of eIFU as per EU MDR 2017/745 Annex 1 23.1 CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 0
Dean Bell Implementation of Controls as per SOA for Stage 2 Audit IEC 27001 - Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) 0
M Case study help as per ISO 9001: 2015 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 18
M Case study solution help required as per ISO 9001 : 2015 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
R Declaration of conformity as per EU MDR (2017/745) CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 5
K %GRR was between 10-30% so we have to have a "backup plan" per auditor IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 15
K What is mean by Oxygen Rich Environment as per the IEC 60601-1 clause no 11.2.2 IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 5
K Dielectric strength test as per IEC 60601-1 -Infant incubator IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
B Accessible parts per 8.4.2 b) - Touch currents in combination with MOOP or MOPP? IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 3
K Diagnostic X-ray devices - Applicability of Biocompatibility Testing per ISO 10993-1 Manufacturing and Related Processes 7
CPhelan Best metrics for monitoring low volume (<1000) parts per vendors Supply Chain Security Management Systems 1
D Supplied Product on Control Plan - Lot ranging in 40,000 pcs per product FMEA and Control Plans 3
K EIFU indicator symbol - Class I labels as per EU MDR EU Medical Device Regulations 3
B Determining SAT Offsets vs TUS Offsets per SAE AMS 2750E AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 0
B Per 21CFR 820.198 (b) - Justification for no investigation 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 22
E Equipment Qualification - IQ/OQ per ISO 13485:2016 section 7.5.6 Process validation ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
J RAMS and LCC assessment per ISO/TS 22163 Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 0
D Performance Qualification per GHTF Guidance Other Medical Device Related Standards 12
Nicole Desouza Sampling plan for a customer who wants AQL 1.0 (per ANSI Z1.4) AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 5
Sam Lazzara Medical Device File (MDF per 13485:2016 4.2.3) versus FDA Device Master Record (DMR) ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
A Glass and brittle plastic Policy - Required per FSSC 220002-4? Food Safety - ISO 22000, HACCP (21 CFR 120) 0
B Is it necessary to conduct product audit of entire product which is manufactured in the company as per IATF IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
B More than one Risk Report per Medical Device ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 3

Similar threads

Top Bottom