1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice
You must be a registered member in order to post messages and view/download attached files in this forum.
Click here to register.

Unmet objective - is it a nonconformity?

Discussion in 'ISO 9001:2015 - Quality Management Systems' started by tony s, Nov 23, 2018.

?

Would you raise a nonconformity if an objective/target was not achieved?

  1. Yes

    8.6%
  2. No

    91.4%
  1. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    You would have used a non-conformity if part of that organization had failed to meet an objective?
     
  2. Leonid

    Leonid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    27
    Location:
    Moscow
    I see no problem. Once a nonconformity occurred the organization shall evaluate the need for corrective action. It can always proclaim that the evaluation was carried out and a decision was made that the corrective action is not needed. Also a correction can be made in form of withdrawal of the unmet objective or prolonging the target terms.
     
  3. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    722
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    USA
    It is important to ask why the objective is not being met. Part of management review is the review of status against objectives, not to raise nonconformities against them but to ask "why?" within the group of persons with (I hope) responsibility and authority to do what's needed.

    It is important to ask two questions:
    1) Is the objective realistic?
    2) Does everyone have what they need to meet the objective? Success relies on adequate resources, appropriate and timely inputs (could be outputs from an upstream process), and an understanding of what's important.

    Issuing nonconformances too often does not accomplish an appropriate review of #1, and too often a superficial "just get it closed" approach to corrective action can fail to ensure #2 factors are all in place.
     
    RoxaneB, tony s and Andy Nichols like this.
  4. Katrina

    Katrina New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2020
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Hi, for the unmet target there really is no requirement on the standard wherein you should make this an NC but for example in our case, we always issue an NCAR to address the ummet target especially its root cause. But our NCAR form and as per requirement by our certifying body NCARs should always have a clause from the ISO standard corresponding to the unmet target so for me, i always use Clause 9.1.3 (d). You may check yours too if this is valid. If you have another answer you may also respond asIi am also trying to find e better clause for this.
     
  5. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Really? The CB makes you do this? Or an auditor does?
     
  6. Eric Twiname

    Eric Twiname Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Northeast USA
    I just voted "Yes"...
    If a goal was worth setting, it was worth meeting (most of the time, I hope).

    The vast majority of unmet goals I've seen have been TM goals ... and the CA filed for the NC had to be signed off by the person who set the goal.
    This made a number of things visible (and visible is the only way to get it fixed).
    1. It 'wasted' TM time reviewing the NC and CA to sign off on it.
    2. It made it visible to TM that they were wasting other peoples time (that they were paying for) doing silly paperwork because of their unreasonable goals.
    3. It made TM aware that the goals they set were not met (you'd be surprised how often they don't know that a goal they set 6mnths ago wasnt met)...they don't even remember setting it.

    The end result (after about 6-12 months) was that much more realistic goals were set...and that when a goal was set, folks actively questioned whether or not it was realistic.

    Calling it a NC was very productive...in my case at least.
    (Perspective...I was TM, and I was in a position to shove it in front of them. If TM never saw the NC, the result would have been far different.)
     
  7. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I would agree, in very general terms, however, I have been in situations where the goal setting (in this particular case I'm recalling) relied on other parts of the organization doing their thing. I had goals, specifically around a certain industrial sector. The available resources were inconsistent which meant at extremes, I couldn't meet my specific goal, due to a lack of these resources from other functions in the organization and, I was told to stop doing my process. It would be counter productive - in my particular case - to issue me an NC, when I had little/no control over those resources and the degree of planning to meet those goals was impractical, not to say improbable. As a management team, the best we could do was shrug our shoulders and wait for the next cycle to arrive and apply what was learned.
     
  8. Eric Twiname

    Eric Twiname Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Northeast USA
    Yet again we agree.
    That's why NC's in this area were forced to TM (by me).
    ...and that's also why I said "most of the time" and "I hope".

    I would not issue the NC to you (assuming that you were the recipient)...I would issue it to the one who set the goal.
    That would give you the chance to show that they were the ones who foiled it.
     
  9. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    1,054
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    CB auditors should not create their own requirements and impose them to their clients. Their job is to assess the clients' operation against well established requirements like international standards, statutory, including the clients' own policies/rules.

    You don't need to label an unmet objective a "nonconformity" to initiate actions. When objectives are reviewed by the top management as per clause 9.3.2c.2, decisions and actions can be initiated when efforts fell short to support their achievement. Refer to clause 9.3.3 on this.
     
  10. Qualmx

    Qualmx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2015
    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    27
    Location:
    Mexico
    An old post, but an idea came to my mind
    But if in the understanding is found an evidence of the breakdown, lets´s say productions proccesses failed, then in this case a NC should be raised up, the point is pointed to what ? to the processes or because objective was unmet? maybe there was a poor follow up in the management reviews or
    kpis in the processes.
     
  11. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    1,054
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    What if objectives were not met, not because of failure in the production, but because of the effects of an external issue such as this pandemic? Many organizations, without a doubt, have failed to achieve their set objectives because of COVID. My original question was intentionally plain and straightforward, irrespective of the cause/s, "would you raise a nonconformity if an objective or target was not achieved?" No ifs, no buts.
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  12. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I vote 'no.' The question posed is too restrictive in its scope...it's like asking "Would you discipline your child if they missed curfew?" Most parents, I would hope, would want to know why the child was late coming home - questions would be asked, discussions would be held, actions would be taken (and these might include discipline depending on the results of the questions and discussions), but at face value, the answer to the question is no.

    The same applies to objectives and targets. It adds no value to simply issue a nonconformance when an objective/target is not met. What does add value is the support offered by the organization to understand why there was a lack of fulfillment. Was the result discussed at management review and what were the subsequent actions? is there an understanding as to what drives the result (i.e., is it impacted by other processes internal and/or external to the organization)? Are the drivers being actioned?
     
    tony s and Andy Nichols like this.
  13. Marigi

    Marigi Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2020
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Thank you for this thread @tony s . This is a great read. This has been our struggle in our system for sometime now.
    Our organization has multiple branches, each with a target, cascaded from their respective regional offices. Of course, the regional targets were set by the head quarters. At the usual scenario, a branch is given targets that were usually baselined from its previous year targets. New targets may be the same as last year or increased most of the time, but never lowered, regardless if the previous targets were met.
    The targets achievement were reviewed at least quarterly, albeit, the determination whether these are achieved by the branch is measured at the end of the year.
    Every quarter report, catch up plans are formulated whenever it is deemed that the accomplishment is minimal or not as expected or gives you a figure that is far from your yearend target.
    While that is our requirement, the CB auditors are insisting for the "corrective action" compliance for unmet targets.
    Our thoughts are messed, how could the branch correct such thing? If I am the branch, and i was given a target to increased my sales to 1M, but did not achieve because of circumstances like the pandemic, or just because the market in my area has been saturated, what could be my corrective action such that that "NC" will not occur or recur elsewhere?
    Thank you in adv for any further insight.
     
    tony s likes this.
  14. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    This is the world of the CB auditor! Every they find is treated like an iceberg. The view is taken that there's much, much more beneath the surface. They view the world that a small issue they found must actually represent a much larger issue, in which case, there's a need for corrective action. It's a simple solution to get the client to be responsible for taking action. It makes no sense, but it is their world. The viewpoint is distorted in this way.
     
  15. Marigi

    Marigi Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2020
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Very true. The viewpoint is very distorted.
    Do you have any advice on how to rebut these kinds of auditors?
     
  16. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    In reality, that's not the thing to do. It would be like getting at the truck driver who delivered some non-conforming products to your receiving dock. It's the supplier's management who need to know of the issue. It is the CB management who send these auditors, not fully knowing just how incompetent they really are. I'd be taking up the issue with them, through their "appeals" process (which they're required to have and make public)
     
  17. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    1,054
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    Set a very conservative target. This will help you prevent unmet objectives. This will also prevent auditors to insist on corrective actions. This will also make your life more relax.:eek:

    Seriously, it will be counter-productive if you do what I have just mentioned and what other QFO members have said about setting weak objectives. As per your question, you should not concern yourself on how are you going to correct or what corrective action must be done to address non-achievement of the target. The standard requires organization to review their objectives and, as outputs of that review, come up with "decisions and actions" relating to opportunities for improvement, any need for changes and resources (see 9.3.3). There's no categorical statement that specify anything about correction or corrective action on unmet objectives. So, auditors cannot insist for correction/corrective action.

    The "catch up plans" that you formulate every quarter, I believe, satisfies the intention of the standard in coming up with "decisions and actions" as output of the review of the objectives. The standard also mentioned that organizations should update their objectives as appropriate (see 6.2.1g). This can happen when potential or actual changes on issues can impact the set objectives. The reason why changes in internal/external issues is part of the inputs to be considered in management review. So, organizations, including auditors, should not automatically expect new targets must not go lower than the previous targets.

    Auditors who practice raising NCs on non-achievement of objectives irrespective of the cause push organizations to set weak objectives. This type of auditors are non-value-adding auditors. Anybody can easily see an unmet objective, a nonconforming output/product/service or a case of complaint. A lazy auditor will just report them to you, raise a nonconformity and demand corrective actions.

    Objective, whether met or unmet, is a result (by its definition). Nonconforming outputs/products/services are results. A complaint can result from provision of nonconforming products/services. Consequences (i.e. in 10.2.1a.2) are results. They are just symptoms or tip of the iceberg. By themselves alone, they should not be viewed as nonconformities. Results or consequences that are undesirable can be caused by nonconformities. Auditors who are able to dig the nonconformities causing the "undesirable results" are value-adding auditors.
     
  18. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    To Tony's point, objectives should be established based on "S.M.A.R.T" principles. Specific. Measureable. Attainable. Relevant. Time-based. If they are attainable, this will be a guard against not meeting them and the subsequent furor caused by auditors. There's nothing wrong adding "stretch" goals to the attainable targets set. In that case you have a "safety net" too.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2021
  19. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Without knowing the exact wording of the finding, I'm going to posit that the true nature of the finding is not about "failure to hit 1M in sales" but more about how objectives and targets are developed, reviewed, and actioned.

    I come from a world where our targets were never adjusted part way through the year. Full stop. If market conditions changed, this was part of the review process and it was documented why correction action was not taken, while also also detailing the results, trends, cause and effects of the results, etc. In other words, we didn't just say "Well, crap, we missed target because of the current environment. Oh well." We would look at what was driving the results, focusing on the items within our control or sphere of influence and explore ways for us to exploit those even more.

    Now I'm in a world where, given COVID, we set a 6-month budget - not a full year - and plan out our expected volumes for that amount and we baby-step our goals. Granted, for some of our metrics, we are under contractual obligation to meet certain targets - and the entire sector (us and our competitors) are all struggling here.

    I'm all for SMART goals and stretch goals, but my instinct says that even if the finding is about the failure to hit a target, that's not what the finding is really about...in other words, not sure what there is to refute. Based on what I've read so far, the issue actually lies within the objective and target management process. Totally willing to change my mind on this depending on the wording of the finding.
     
    Jennifer Kirley and Andy Nichols like this.
  20. Abed Salameh

    Abed Salameh Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2023
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Location:
    England
    Well, it all depends on the issue, if the kpi under review is not on track, we need to be able to explain why, it could be a spike, in this situation you don't need to raise an NCR at alll, for example if the reason was because of holiday shut down, we did not meet the OTD. but if the kpi keeps off track for a couple of months without taking/ addressing the issue, then I will tend to raise an NCR/ CAR report.