Re: Responding to audit findings
I agree with the others that you need to address the why of the procedures not being followed
"to the letter". Though your stating it this way makes me think that the problem may be in the way the procedure is written.
Possible things to consider might be:
1) There are too many "letters" in the procedure(s), in other words they are too specific for the task and don't allow for individual variations.
Example: it really doesn't matter whether "part A" or "part B" is assembled first, but the procedure specifies "A", and then "B". The operators, knowing it doesn't matter are assembling most efficient manner for them as individuals, some doing "A" first, others doing "B" first. The output is fine, but the procedure is not being followed "to the letter" by everyone.
2) It could be that the operators have determined a better way to do the process and the procedure has not been updated, or not adequately updated.
3) Operators are not adequately trained in the procedure. However if this is the case I would expect to see problems with the process output. If the procedure is not being followed and the process output is satisfactory, then I'd look at the other issues dealing with how the procedure is written.
It is important that we remember that procedures are dynamic things that should reflect how things are actually done. They should not be written so tightly that allowances are not made for the variances of individuals unless such stringency is requird by the process output itself.
When I would write a procedure, I would call out the required inputs and outputs along with general statement of what needs to happen to the inputs in order to generate an acceptable output. One could add an expected time to complete the task if appropriate and also a statement (as appropriate) that the steps need not be followed in the precise order called out. If one gets into much more than that, it can quickly become too wordy and difficult to maintain.
Just some ideas to consider.
Peace
James