Warehouse Audit - Nonconformance or not - That is the question

[bobdoering]

I would look for further evidence that other products were stored in the wrong location and also assess how much of a risk this presented in the wrong product being delivered to the customer before deciding whether to raise a non-conformance or not.

Is having product is a specific location part of their process procedure? If so, then what is the problem with their process that it does not happen? Risk analysis is not the issue, their procedure is. If it is not a part of their procedure, and no customer cares that their product can be anywhere in the warehouse, as long as they can find it, then you may not have an issue. But, that seems an uncommon condition to be satisfied with.

Now, a simple corrective action may be all that is warranted - rather than a full implementation of a bar code system (unless that is the customer's expectation). Did they run out of room in the designated area? Was product moved without updating location? If you do not avoid that, it can only get worse. As a warehouse function (and they only have a few key functions) I would not minimize the problem.

 

[bobdoering]

Re: Nonconformance or not- that is the question

I have written similar NC's....a long time ago. Then I matured as an auditor. Should all products be in the designated location? Yes, just like we all should drive under the speed limit in the freeways.

And, they have these guys with flashing lights on their cars that write up nonconformances when they catch you. Try to ask them to be 'mature'....

Until you collect objective evidence that product being misplaced is affecting product conformity, delivery schedules and/or customer satisfaction, you have an opportunity for improvement to report.

If you have any procedure, and it is not followed - it is not a nonconformance until one can prove it is affecting product conformity, delivery schedules and/or customer satisfaction? I thought the idea was to stop it before it affects product conformity, delivery schedules and/or customer satisfaction - because it will.

I understand the idea of not nit picking, but as a warehouse function (and they only have a few key functions) I would not minimize the problem.

From a business perspective, for the organization, it might make more business sense (cheaper) to pay someone to "chase" lost product in the warehouse than to keep close to 100% location accuracy in the system.

OK...then that becomes their process, put it in the procedure as a corrective action and send it up the flag pole and see if everyone buys into it...or not.

 

[Pathfinder]

Originally Posted by Sidney Vianna


I have written similar NC's....a long time ago. Then I matured as an auditor. Should all products be in the designated location? Yes, just like we all should drive under the speed limit in the freeways.

I am sure that I have not been in the business as long as yourself, however the label (matured) is a little off the mark I believe. Believe it or not, my clients appreciate the fact that it is black of white (they may not like it sometimes, however). Very often when I take over a client account that has been audited by more "mature" auditors they have multiple underlying issues just below the surface. I believe, since we are sampling, we owe it to the client to point out where it does not meet the requirements and let them reseach the extent and come up with a permanent (or as close too) as possible corrective action.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I am sure that I have not been in the business as long as yourself, however the label (matured) is a little off the mark I believe. Believe it or not, my clients appreciate the fact that it is black of white (they may not like it sometimes, however). Very often when I take over a client account that has been audited by more "mature" auditors they have multiple underlying issues just below the surface. I believe, since we are sampling, we owe it to the client to point out where it does not meet the requirements and let them reseach the extent and come up with a permanent (or as close too) as possible corrective action.

What you've described is an issue that might lead to economic loss and/or customer dissatisfaction. These are valid audit findings, whether they are characterized as "nonconformities" or not. Without being able to see the situation, it's hard to say what I would do. I originally asked if this was an internal audit because it does matter from the standpoint of what gets done about it at this point. If you worked for this company you would likely be in a better position to understand the implications of the situation--and know who to talk to about it--and if you're representing a customer, you could create the impression that you're trying to impose unreasonable requirements.

In any case, you've identified at least a potential need for improvement. If the audited company can make a reasonable case for it not being worth pursuing, you should probably take their word for it unless there's a compelling reason (other than a simple right/wrong decision) not to.

 

[RJFisher]

Our registrar doesn't usually write a NC for something like this, unless she sees it multiple times throughout the audit (like more than ONE). I think 3 things would determine whether an NC should be issued:

1. Is it required by their own procedure (process control 7.5 stuff)?
2. Did it negatively affect conformity to product requirements (7.2.1)?
3. Did it negatively affect on-time deliver to the customer (8.2.1 customer satisfaction)?

And, if the NC IS issued, it should be for 7.5.3 Identification and Traceability, not 8.3 Control of Nonconforming Product.

Just my .

 

[Pathfinder]

Our registrar doesn't usually write a NC for something like this, unless she sees it multiple times throughout the audit (like more than ONE). I think 3 things would determine whether an NC should be issued:

1. Is it required by their own procedure (process control 7.5 stuff)?
2. Did it negatively affect conformity to product requirements (7.2.1)?
3. Did it negatively affect on-time deliver to the customer (8.2.1 customer satisfaction)?

And, if the NC IS issued, it should be for 7.5.3 Identification and Traceability, not 8.3 Control of Nonconforming Product.

Just my .

Of course it is not control of non-conforming product. What I was asking was is if anyone had used the 8.3 process of capturing these type of issues within a compnay and then alnalyse the numbers to determine if a CA needs to be developed. The fact that a CA requires an organization to determine a cause (and I am sure we could have an unending discussion on cause, apparent cause, root cause etc.), and that requires time and effort to do, a number of companies tend not to capture these issues within any documented system. It is just part of what they do.

As far as your Registrar, or even your internal auditors, not writing up an issue when they come across it (remember I said it was a requirement, documented in their QMS, that the material be placed in the actual location determined by the warehouse people as the material comes off the line) does no system any good. Period. It does not encourage innovation and improvement in the warehouse system. It indicates acceptance of the status quo. Should you investigate further to determine the "severity" (again another potential long topic of discussion) - absolutely. Larger sample size and more information to put it into perspective is always valuable. However, a finding is a finding is a finding. Not seeing it as that is like standing on the edge of a slippery slope: at some point everything is open for interpretation.

And ,no, it may not affect the on time delivery to the customer most of the time. But the costs involved in searching for the product, staying late to do it for the company, working extra hours to essentially cover for this process (assuming it is more wide spread), if captured properly, can be the data that the warehouse needs to get a better functioning system within the warehouse.

 

[RJFisher]

YIKES... :mg:

Like I said, it was just my ...

 

[Big Jim]

I would want to see the actual wording of the organization's procedure or work instructions. If the wording is such that it truly is a nonconformance, then so be it and write it up. As part of the response if management feels that their procedure or work instruction is stricter than they intended, then they can reword it.

In my personal opinion, it would be (I can't think of the right word but "stupid" is the closest match) for an organization to write their work instructions or procedures so tightly if they don't intend them to be enforced.

 

[Jim Wynne]

The documented portion of the process includes a work instruction indicating that the product coming off the line be given a location in the warehouse and it is placed there by the forklift operators. That number is entered into the software.

As far as your Registrar, or even your internal auditors, not writing up an issue when they come across it (remember I said it was a requirement, documented in their QMS, that the material be placed in the actual location determined by the warehouse people as the material comes off the line) does no system any good.

According to the information you've given so far, the requirement to assign a location and put the material there was met. Does the documentation address the actual problem, that of the material being moved without updating the system?

 

[JaneB]

Upon questioning he said this happened once in a while in the warehouse. ... he indicated that it was too small an issue to warrent a documented corrective action.

... The organization had no idea that it was a non-conformance. When explained they indicated that the paperwork to document a corrective action for this issue would not add any value since they were able to quickly find the product (albeit in another location).

I agree with you up to a point that this may represent an opportunity to improve. Note: may.
But I'd just mention it as a possible opportunity. Before I deemed it an NC, I'd want from any of my auditors some real evidence to establish it was a problem - how often does it happen? How big is the issue?

Would I write a nonconformity on the basis of a single instance on one single occasion? Or accept it as such from an auditor (external / internal). No, I wouldn't (unless perhaps it was a really serious breach of requirements and/or represented a big risk).

I notice you use the word 'believe' a lot in your responses. I'd rather you had some evidence rather than belief. Otherwise, it looks like a very hardline black and white 'it didn't follow the requirement (if that's the case) on this single occasion'.

'Once in a while' is way different from 'all the time' or 'a lot' or 'some of the time'.