Which Clause should I use for this CAR? Contradicting documents

[zzz123]

I need to write a CAR for the inspection method in the Control Plan (calipers) not being used. (using micrometers instead). We have two documents relating to this inspection. They contradict each other. Should it be 8.2.2.3 or 7.5.1.1?

 

[Miner]

I need to write a CAR for the inspection method in the Control Plan (calipers) not being used. (using micrometers instead). We have two documents relating to this inspection. They contradict each other. Should it be 8.2.2.3 or 7.5.1.1?

If the operator was following one of the two documents, then the cause was the fact that two documents disagree, and the CAR should be written against the system that resulted in two documents with conflicting information.

 

[Wes Bucey]

If the operator was following one of the two documents, then the cause was the fact that two documents disagree, and the CAR should be written against the system that resulted in two documents with conflicting information.

I agree. The discrepancy between documents is what should be cited, NOT the actual inspection or the use of the "wrong" instrument. It is management responsibility to assure operator has correct documents and that all obsolete documents are removed.

(Since operator doesn't create document, he can't be responsible for determining WHICH is pertinent, which is not.)

The followup might be an education program for personnel to call attention of supervisor to conflicting documents because S--- happens and sometimes all the obsolete documents aren't found to be removed.

I can see lots of opportunities for improvement, mistake proofing, and enhanced training here. All of which would be more beneficial to the organization than dealing with a nonconformance report.

 

[howste]

I agree with Miner. Depending on the situation you could go several different directions. The nonconformity could be written against:
4.2.3a - documents not approved for adequacy prior to issue,
8.2.4 - did not monitor and measure the characteristics of the product in accordance with the planned arrangements
7.5.1.2 - work instructions not derived from the control plan
8.2.3.1 - did not ensure that the control plan is implemented, including adherence to the specified measurement techniques

 

[Caster]

Yikes! No ISO clause at all!

I need to write a CAR for the inspection method in the Control Plan (calipers) not being used. (using micrometers instead). We have two documents relating to this inspection. They contradict each other. Should it be 8.2.2.3 or 7.5.1.1?

Is this a certification audit or an internal audit?

From my skewed viewpoint, in internal audits, I never mention ISO and never ever cite an ISO clause number. Never ever.

Write the nonconformance against their documented procedure. Or lack of one.

Say what you do,
do what you say,
be able to prove it.
React to mistakes.
Get better over time.

There, you now have ISO in 20 words. No clause numbers need be invoked.

The word quality need not be mentioned.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

I need to write a CAR for the inspection method in the Control Plan (calipers) not being used. (using micrometers instead). We have two documents relating to this inspection. They contradict each other. Should it be 8.2.2.3 or 7.5.1.1?

You can also cite both, but I also agree that citing the procedure numbers is useful, but in this case, the two procedures are part of the problem.

I would probably cite 7.5.1.1 and the two procedures.