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.

Opportunities not addressed separately from risks - NC

Discussion in 'ISO 9001:2015 - Quality Management Systems' started by tony s, Mar 6, 2024.

  1. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    1,055
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    My friend’s company received a Major NC last month because they opted not to adopt their CB auditor’s last year’s audit finding about the way they identify risks and opportunities. The auditor insisted, during the previous audit, that opportunities must be identified and addressed separately from the risks.

    According to my friend, they have been using an RBT tool where they identify risks that can adversely affect their set objectives and, after which, opportunities are identified and translated into concrete actions to address the risks. They intend to continue with this approach despite the CB auditor’s prescriptive audit finding. Consequently, they appeal the Major NC to the CB management. Early this week they received a response from the CB. Here’s the response:

    Good day. We, have reviewed your appeal and the Review Board find your interpretation of the requirement in addressing the opportunities not aligned with the standard. Clause 6.1.1 requires organizations to identify risks AND opportunities that need to be addressed FROM the issues and requirements of interested parties. However, your procedure (RBT tool) suggests that opportunities are identified from risks, which is entirely not the interpretation of the requirement.

    That is why the Review Board recommends that the Major NC be downgraded if you revise your procedure and submit sample identification of opportunities based on the identified issues and requirements of the interested parties and not on the identified risks.    ​

    I posted this to obtain additional guidance from the members of this forum to help my friend who is now preparing to reply to the CB’s advice. Thanks.
     
    tony s, Mar 6, 2024
    #1
  2. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,109
    Likes Received:
    2,562
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    The auditor is waaaay off base here. As the A4 annex states very clearly, there's no requirement for formal risk management (the friend's organization have opted for a complex approach was isn't really what the standard is about.) As a result, I fear that the organization has dug itself a hole and, as a consequence, the overly zealous auditor has helped push them into said hole. The CAB management are simply backing their auditor.

    BTW, I believe that risks vs opportunities may become a subject of a request to change in the 2025 version.

    I'd recommend the organization STOP making risk and opportunity such a complex issue. It isn't meant to be - as far as the ISO requirements go. It can't have meant such a thing, or the A4 comment wouldn't exist. Pity that neither party has actually read it...
     
    Andy Nichols, Mar 6, 2024
    #2
    tony s and John C. Abnet like this.
  3. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    510
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Upper Midwest- USA
    What @Andy Nichols said
     
    John C. Abnet, Mar 6, 2024
    #3
    tony s likes this.
  4. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    1,055
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    This is a good input for my friend's reply. Thanks Andy.
     
    tony s, Mar 7, 2024
    #4
    Andy Nichols and John C. Abnet like this.
  5. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    1,055
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    What piqued me here is the auditor and the CAB insistence to implement what they believe is the only approach that satisfies the requirement. They threaten to sustain the major NC, unless their client follow what they want.

    Auditors must not create requirements from their interpretations. Difference in interpretation or approach does not constitute a nonconformity. :mad:
     
    tony s, Mar 7, 2024
    #5
    Great White Buffalo, Andy Nichols and John C. Abnet like this.
  6. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,109
    Likes Received:
    2,562
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    You are very welcome. This "holier than thou" attitude of some CABs and their auditors is plain wrong. I cannot fathom who they think they actually are in the grand scheme of things...
     
    Andy Nichols, Mar 7, 2024
    #6
    tony s likes this.
  7. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    62
    From my experience, interpretation is the cause of many nonconformities.
     
    Golfman25, Mar 9, 2024
    #7
    Great White Buffalo and tony s like this.
  8. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,109
    Likes Received:
    2,562
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Which should be appealed every time. CAB Auditors do not "interpret". Organizations' leadership does, ISO TC 176 does. Effectiveness demonstrates if the approach is sound.
     
    Andy Nichols, Mar 9, 2024
    #8
  9. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Right, but look where the OPs appeal got him. Nowhere. The entire system is a bunch of BS.
     
    Golfman25, Mar 9, 2024
    #9
  10. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,109
    Likes Received:
    2,562
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    "Nowhere"? Really? Maybe not with the chosen CB, but they are not all tarred with the same brush! They have options to change CA or even just the auditor. Of course the "entire system is BS" only when customers don't provide honest feedback and seek to improve things. As a business you wouldn't ignore customer feedback would you? Maybe you would. If they said your whole enterprise was BS based on a the quality defects, you'd want to discover why the customer feels that way. Maybe you chose the wrong CAB, like the OP apparently did. Who knows what their criteria are/were. What are yours when it comes to selecting a supplier? Cheap? Lowest cost expenses? Easy life?
     
    Andy Nichols, Mar 9, 2024
    #10