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.

audit finding practicalities

Discussion in 'ISO 19011 - Auditing Management Systems Guidelines' started by Qbot123, Nov 11, 2020.

  1. Qbot123

    Qbot123 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2020
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    2
    I'm trying to make our audit procedure as 'user friendly', but still useful and effective as possible.

    Firstly, in terms of audit report / findings. At the moment, non-conformances are fed into the separate non-conformance system, and i'm wondering if it might be easier to make the audit more 'self-contained' and so all non-conformances and the actions and follow ups are all included in the single audit report.
    I'm just wondering if this is the approach most people would take?

    Also in terms of findings, we currently have, non-conformances, observations and OFIs which there seems to be an expectation that all of these need follow-up actions and completion dates. Would other people would typically expect a follow up to an observation in an internal audit, or would that typically be more of a 'For information only', 'be aware' type thing? One thought is just to do away with the observations and just have the nc and ofi findings that are counted and monitored.

    Thank you for any thoughts on any of this!
     
  2. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    4,423
    Likes Received:
    2,226
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    This is what I do.
    I do not do this, it's an external audit technique.

    If we draw a comparison with product non-conformities, we usually don't "grade" them. Product is either to spec or it's non-conforming. Audit findings should be treated the same. The "gravity" of the finding is communicated through the qualitative and quantitative information also presented - the "risk".
     
    John C. Abnet likes this.
  3. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    428
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    Upper Midwest- USA
  4. Qbot123

    Qbot123 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2020
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Thank you, your responses are sort of in-line with the direction i was heading.
    I think the observations aspect of our system has really been adding confusion into the findings and I've not found it very useful.
     
    John C. Abnet and Andy Nichols like this.
  5. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    4,423
    Likes Received:
    2,226
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    With audit findings, it's often a case of the "punishment" and the "crime" are no related in any way. The auditor may think it's a "major", but then, the actual description of the non-conformity is less than interesting to management. Most NC statements aren't well written. There's scant regard to the qualitative and quantitative details which drive the issue to a level where management would recognize something needs doing. For example, an internal auditor found that a home-grown product non-conformance/reject database had 8,000 entries but couldn't run a report on them. 8,000 sounds big, but in a very large shop with 1,0000s of SKUs, over years may not be such a big deal... So the auditor assigned a $ value to that. BINGO! 8,000 NCRs x $1,000 each to resolve and close out the issue? $8M? (the sum was actually closer to $14M) - that got the President excited! Plus we never mentioned an ISO clause! Someone knew it was 8.7, or whatever. The exciting number was $8M!

    Was it "Major"? "Minor"? or an "Observation"...
     

Share This Page