CB, Company and NC's

The dilemma that is faced is this: When auditors write no non-conformities, it is suspected that they are not doing their job. With increasing pressure coming from various parts of industry, CBs are putting pressure on their auditors to show that they did their job - one measure of which is the output of non-conformities reports - and remember it's no longer acceptable to create "observations" which read like a minor grade NC etc. Increasingly, major players who use the certification industry to replace their own SQA function, expect - IMHO - the CB auditor to act more and more like the SQA does/did. And they tended to write findings on all manner of issues, not all of which were germane to the process/product/contract etc. It's really - once again in my opinion - mission creep from the original purpose of a certified QMS.

That said, it doesn't provide an escape clause for an ineffectual auditor to do superficial audits, and create bogus reports based on bias and subjectivity. The actual findings still have to have merit as a non-conformity and not "could have/should have/would have" type reports. IF the auditors have been systematic in their approach to looking at the company's performance, changes and so on, followed the trails appropriately and investigated to the depth necessary to test the robustness of the QMS, then that will appear in the body of the report and justifies the "no nc" result. I rather doubt, however, many auditors have the perspicacity to be capable of such an audit...

 

If the findings are based on interpretation and not the actual black-and-white of the standard, I would fight the findings and start the process of looking for a new CB and/or request a new auditor. If the CB questions why, I would state, quite simply, that the findings were based on a biased interpretation and added no value to the Quality Management System.

When I first ventured into the world of QMS and ISO, many auditors (internal and external) appeared to have the belief that something must always be found. This is one of the reasons why, in my opinion, ISO 9001 is considered to be a piece of a paper on the wall and little more.

Thankfully, my own auditing skills have evolved beyond the "shark on the scent of blood" or witchhunt mentality, and my notes clearly indicate the robustness and maturity of system (i.e., supporting the lack of any findings). I also train auditors in this approach.

Audits are synonymous with punishment and finger-pointing...however, I like to use them as a communication tool for highlighting strengths and benchmark performance. I've also been fortunate enough, over recent years, to have worked with external auditors - assessing to various standards, not just ISO-based ones - who have a similar philosophy. We believe that audits and assessments have a primary objective to recognize excellence within a system...their secondary objectives are to highlight opportunities and identify nonconformances/gaps.

 

I agree with the comments so far. My CB does track an average of how many NCs we auditors issue per day but insists there is no quota. That said, there was recently a caution to avoid a long list of OFIs when no NCs are issued, as our own audit by ANAB raised a question of soft grading.

If you believe the NCs do not pass the test of:

1) Accurate
2) Clearly articulated
3) Applicable to the standard and/or your own procedures
4) Actionable

...then I would certainly consider the dispute process. Like kids and puppies, if auditors get something wrong we should be told right away. Also, if enough people dispute what ends up to be nonsensical NCs then the CB can (I hope) review their apparently random expectations for NCs written at each visit.

The perception of value is another question. I am guessing your organization has not yet transitioned to the 2015 version. Until you do, then relevance is not something we could argue if #1 and #3 are true. Without having present I'm afraid this is the best I can offer right now.