8.2.2.1 Determining the requirements for products and services - supplemental

Welcome Solanki!

I don't see a non-conformity here, since all that's present is a requirement restated from IATF and a statement saying a process isn't effective. Is this all of the non-conformity reported by the auditor?

If it is, then you must reject the reported non-conformity to the Certification Body. It is missing key information, which is the audit evidence of non-conformity, and the auditor is, therefore, in error.

 

I still don’t see sufficient details to make a complete non-conformity. The fact that you are asking us here, is a clue to how poorly this is written.

Please restate the non-conformity, as written by your auditor, here.

 

Depends on what a) their management system requires of them and b) what's effective. Neither of these have been included in this (apparently) very poorly written nc statement. As of now, there is nothing to answer...

 

Here's the dilemma such forums and contributors face: The OP thinks they need to fix something, but doesn't know what. They ask how to fix something, so people say "do this or do that". However, as all Quality professionals know, without a problem statement, nothing will be resolved. We haven't even got a non-conformity, so providing "fixes" is simply band-aiding and the path of least resistance. As is common across the interwebs, people wade in with "fixes" without accountability for their suggestions. What auditors ask for is NOT what we should be fixing. People are jerked around by their auditors all the time, that's their choice...

I'd offer no-one here should be suggesting fixes when we have no actual information on what the problem is...

 

I agree with Andy. Without the objective evidence, almost anything could have been wrong from lacking any system at all, to a very specific gap in one area. We just don't know.

 

I beg to differ. A Certification Body auditor is simply a supplier. No different to a calibration lab, or heat treater. If you got shoddy work from them, you'd reject it, documenting why. The rules of (IAF) accreditation allow for such avenues to be exercised. Certified organizations can - and must for the health of certification - hold Certification Bodies accountable for their performance in exactly the same manner as any supplier. Organizations pay good money for the contracted services. Organizations have zero hesitation in cutting a reject note and sending out a request for Supplier Corrective Action when requirements (needs and expectations) are not met. It shouldn't be any different for a CB. What's the worst they can do? Send another auditor? Write more bogus findings? Sadly, experience shows organizations get what they pay for and when making the selection of any supplier, based on the inadequate criteria, and they must live with their poor decision. Others can avoid that.

As with dinosaurs, evolution can catch you out. Only some survived...

 

Well, yes, but clearly without facts, that is going to be difficult, hence the OP's question. Forums are full of people who like to say "Do what works for you". Trouble is, people don't know what that looks like, hence their questions. Those who reply with such platitudes, apparently don't know, either, or they'd explain what to do...

 

You can fight back but too many companies are afraid to do so. I personally have had two auditors from different companies replaced. One for treating our employees badly, another for making up requirements on the fly and having the nerve to tell our facility that I, as the Quality Director, was not allowed back at the next audit because I "challenged his findings." A third auditor was replaced because they never found anything across 10+ facilities.

 

The consensus is that you (and the auditor) need to be more specific as to the gap between your system and the requirements. We don't know anything about the nonconformance and can only guess as to the issue.

 

No-one (here) can help you.

You don't have a problem statement which will allow anyone to provide appropriate solutions. All we have are symptoms

Your auditor has written a very poor non-conformance - that's where the problem starts.

The solution to that is to reject the non-conformity back to the Certification Body for their clarification.

Good luck!