Write down same nonconformity in several processes?

#1
Hi all

Please share your opinion in this issue.
Auditing a 9001 system.

When auditing the responsible of the Management system (Coordinator) in the process management system, it was found that for Some documents, the responsible didn´t follow what the procedure stated.

The procedure states that responsible of the process have to revise the document and finally the General manager have to approve them.

But in this case the coordinator revised all the documents of all the processes and General manager approved them.
So a NC was written down for this process.

This person (coordinator) is in charge to receive approved documents from the general manager, then convert them in PDF , then load final files into the system, so that the new releases are available to all the people.

But when auditing the next process (human resources), and one document is audited (a job description of the responsible of the process), it was revised to check authorities and responsibilities.

Both issues (authorities and responsibilities) were ok, so were in compliance, but....... such document was one for which a NC was written down, and the same happened when audited the third process (sales) , So, the question is should I write down a new NC in these last two processes, or is enough with the first one?

Please give you advice.

Thanks
 
#3
It depends on the organization. If you feel the NC raised at one place will be accepted, properly treated by all processes and will be horizontally deployed, you can raise a single NC. If not, better to write an NC for all the processes where found.
 
Last edited:
#4
It depends on the organization. If you feel the NC raised at one place will be accepted, properly treated by all processes and will be horizontally deployed, you can raise a single NC. If not, better to write an NC for all the processes where found.
Is there a rule in iso to follow for this case?if written down against the last two processes it may seem that they are responsable of the NC , when it was actually the coordinator’s fault.

I think that when we audit a process we are measuring their performance and in this case it was not their fault.
Please share your opinions, thanks[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RoxaneB

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
#8
I'm not quite sure I understand. It sounds like the issue is with the doc control process, not the individual departments - presuming the coordinator is in some admin role? Or did I mis-read this issue?

If the issue is in the doc control process, then I'd suggest it's one nonconformance written up, but it's a systemic issue that may require an investigation into the entire document control process (i.e., responsibilities, efficiency, effectiveness, etc.)
 
#9
I'm not quite sure I understand. It sounds like the issue is with the doc control process, not the individual departments - presuming the coordinator is in some admin role? Or did I mis-read this issue?

If the issue is in the doc control process, then I'd suggest it's one nonconformance written up, but it's a systemic issue that may require an investigation into the entire document control process (i.e., responsibilities, efficiency, effectiveness, etc.)
Yes Roxane, is control of documents. Sound good your suggestion, thanks to all of you
 

Randy

Super Moderator
#10
Either determine the cause of the problem and fix it or start eliminating documents (especially the ones that are nice to have but there is no real need for them). You pretty much only need to document what's required by the standard itself, the law and other obligations (can include customers), and those necessary, as determined by you, to demonstrate effectiveness of the QMS.

I'll guarantee, sight unseen, that you have a ton of documents that are nice to see and are fluff smoke & mirrors
 

Top Bottom