Discussion in 'ISO 9001:2015 - Quality Management Systems' started by tony s, Nov 23, 2018.
You would have used a non-conformity if part of that organization had failed to meet an objective?
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.
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.
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.
Really? The CB makes you do this? Or an auditor does?
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Separate names with a comma.