Audit Non-Conformance

Need a little help. In the past when we have received non-conformances, the auditor identified the section of the standard clause by number and then made a statement of the "rule" and then described the evidence why he/she felt the "rule" was not met. Basically showing me the shall.

Currently, I have an audit non-conformance and all that is indicated is the clause number. Then a statement about the process being "partially effective." This is followed by a description of the "evidence." I am having a hard time making heads or tails of it.

Before I challenge, have audit report requirements changed? Should she be required to be more clear?

 

Who know what they where doing. However, it seems to have been fixed on the new report. Thanks.

 

Well frankly it is a complete cluster. So they do a draft report with like 8 issues. Two days later we get a "final" with 10 issues. I question it and am told it should be 8, only to be told a few days later, no its 10. The draft report didn't indicate the standard language at issue, just the number. So I spent two days trying to figure out what they where talking about. The new report quotes the language, so in that respect it is "fixed." However, some of the "evidence" doesn't even come close to matching the subject matter of the particular section of the standard. All I really want to do is figure out what they are talking about so I can determine what to do. Is that too much to ask?

Gosh, I miss the old Elsmar Cove. A lot of the issues had been previously addressed there over the years.

 

Please go to the appeal process to justify the nonconformance. Simply make a phone call to the CB. There is something wrong with the auditor, not the CB.

 

We have been using this CB (and their predecessors) for 3 cycles. In the past, the auditors have all be really good. Unfortunately, IATF is driving auditors out of the TS business due to their onerous requirements. I have already had 2 good ones "retire" from TS and another will likely once the kids are out of school. So we got stuck with this one - the classic nit picker who then goes on to make reporting errors. With less and less TS auditors, the workloads and travel have expanded for the existing ones. Nobody in their right minds would continue under those circumstances indefinitely.

 

This sounds like a TS auditor I have had in the past...

What is the process they are saying is partially effective?

 

As a client we need to submit a Customer Satisfaction Survey after an audit. I will be asking my CB have the auditors leave a CSI survey after they complete a surveillance audit. And I will suggest that the report on the CSI has to be submitted to IAOB for disposition.

 

So when I appeal, do I appeal the finding, i.e.; the "evidence." Or the application of the evidence to the standard clause? Or both.

 

So can I appeal a "finding" which cites the wrong clause of the standard, even though it may be valid against another clause? Or will they just revise the finding to the proper clause?

 

ABSOLUTELY!!! My TS auditor has been giving us what could be classified as "bogus" findings but since they are minor, Top Management does not want to appeal. In the future, when an auditor gives you a non-conformance, I suggest that you and the auditor read the standard "verbatim" and ask him (where is the requirement?) If he paraphrase the standard and you have a different interpretation, that is a ground for appeal.

 

I'm not ready the throw my CB under the bus yet. This is the first bad auditor we have had from them. We'll see how they handle it from here.

 

As I said, we have had good luck with previous auditors from the CB. Maybe this guy had a bad day. I'll give them a chance to review an appeal and go from there.

 

And so it goes. Seems like my CB is spooked by the IATF. It appears to me that the IATF is really putting the hammer down and taking all discretion/judgment away from the auditors. All the findings I have read like bullet points from findings the IATF have given them. Things that have been reviewed and effective for years are now insufficient. New interpretations are effectively adding new requirements. Looks like I am stuck deciphering the report and creating a bunch of new non value added documents because the IATF says so. Common sense has left the building.