Top Management Quality Objectives Missing - ISO 9001:2000 5.4.1

[Paul Simpson]

Exactly. But when the auditor tells a client, "we'll review these next time around" there's a warning, maybe even a threat. Some clients, especially those new to the game, are easily swayed by these statements and often do unnecessary work.

I do think it's legitimate for an auditor to use an OFI to put a client on notice that there's an NC lurking in the future, but only when the NC can't be fully pursued during the current audit -- maybe it's too far off-scope, or the auditor is out of time.

At my CB we have two types of "Non NC" . We can raise an opportunity for improvement (OFI) when we see something that seems to be inefficient or where there is information in the public domain that might help. Some of my favourites are QOS for objective deployment or FMEA for preventive action. I always use these as examples for them to look at and consider.

The other form is the Observation which we use to indicate that a process may be deteriorating towards being non complaint - the shot across the bows if you like.

I always explain at closing meetings that they do not have to do anything on OFIs / Observations but that I will always ask them if they got anything from it.

I appreciate the "threat" may be there but if someone ignores an OFI / Observation the next step is not to raise an NC but to understand what they are doing instead.

 

[Roland Cooke]

I agree with Paul, but I would like to add that I occasionally raise non-conformities where Observations have been ignored.

Under Management Management Review there is a requirement to review the "results of audits".

It doesn't say "non-conformities from audits".

So if an organisation documents a justifiable rationale for taking no action on an OFI, that's fine. But if the organisation ignores the "non-NC findings", that isn't.

 

[CliffK]

Was this really meant the way it sounds?

It seems like a textbook example of an auditor using a particular interpretation of the standard to enforce desired behavior that is not mandated by the standard.

I occasionally raise non-conformities where Observations have been ignored.

Under Management Management Review there is a requirement to review the "results of audits".

It doesn't say "non-conformities from audits".

It doesn't say "observations and OFI's," either. Since neither ISO 9000:2005 nor 9001:2000 define "audit results," I would claim that the organization is free to define the term in whatever way best suits its needs as perceived by the organization.

So if an organisation documents a justifiable rationale for taking no action on an OFI, that's fine. But if the organisation ignores the "non-NC findings", that isn't.

"Documents a justifiable rationale." Can this really mean they can't just tell the auditor why they didn't adopt the idea, they have to write it down?

And who determines whether a rationale is "justifiable?" Is it the auditor, the one who had the idea in the first place? Isn't there just a wee risk of loss of objectivity here?

Sorry, I can't buy into this concept. Not when there are auditors in the field suggesting stuff like this:

• replacing "quality control" with "quality assurance" in an entire body of quality system documentation; or,
• suggesting that clients need to apply "page X of Y" numbering to all fo their procedures or work instructions; or,
• suggesting that a company with 20 people adopt Toyota's badge system to indicate training level; or
• suggesting that a company spend money to color-code hoses when the corresponding truck valves are not color coded.

 

[Roland Cooke]

Not sure where all that came from. Are you sure that's just sugar in your coffee?

And no, I'm not defending the rest of your list, indeed they sound unreasonable to me too.

"Documents a justifiable rationale." Can this really mean they can't just tell the auditor why they didn't adopt the idea, they have to write it down?

"Err... we didn't act on the observations because we only read the CARs and forgot about the rest of the report."

I see that, worryingly often.

The standard requires Management Review to include recommendations for improvement and results of audits as inputs (5.6.2a and 5.6.2g). Where this doesn't happen it can be a non-conformity.
Sometimes. No more, no less.

And no, I don't insist they write it down. And yes, I do always try to avoid imposing my crusade-de-jour, but it never hurts to be reminded!