Recurring Nonconformity will result to a Major NC

I have heard it before, but it was at an IATF 16949 audit. If your experience was with "vanilla" ISO 9001, I'd suggest it's "mission creep", from the automotive rules. Of course, CBs will always make up their own rules. One I know of said that 4 minors in one element/clause was a major! If only it was that simple. Crazy...

 

Mission creep by the auditor?

 

To echo John's response, it does depend. I'll get back to this is a moment...

My own opinion on that kind of approach (i.e., 4 minors = 1 major) is that the organization was attempting to standardize their auditors' results. There is still some grey when it comes to auditing - especially with newbie auditors. Giving them some logic to follow was perhaps a way to help them determine what type of finding to write up. They decided, for whatever reason, that 4 hiccoughs = 1 systematic issue. I'm not saying I agree with this approach, but I can understand if that was the thought process behind it.

Let's face it, sure we have a standard and we have organizational processes, but there is still some grey when it comes to auditing. There is "what is written" and then there is the "spirit" or "intent" of the requirements. There is also a desire to help an organization succeed and if they've improved from the previous visit but still just aren't quite there, do we penalize them or do we find some way to highlight the improvement while quietly pointing out that they're not quite meeting the requirements to the fullest extent possible? I'll be honest, and this probably why I will never work for a CB, I'd rather celebrate their achievements and forward progress, than to say "yeah, you're still not there." Grey area, however, it depends on the organization, maturity, leadership involvement, etc. It's usually easy to tell the difference between an organization going for just the paper on the wall versus one that genuinely wants to improve and ensure a wonderful experience for all Stakeholders.

Back to Tony's question, again, there is no black and white answer here. If the minor nonconformity was in one department for let's say document control, and the organization corrected it...and this time around the finding is in a different department, but still with document control, is that a major finding? It could be a completely different root cause - and we don't know this at the time because we're not there to solve the problems - so classifying it as a major seems a little non-value-add to me.

To the CB's point, however, their intent is probably focused on the spirit of corrective action - identify it, fix it, reduce the likelihood of it recurring...because if it recurs, perhaps we did not have the right root cause or a robust-enough action plan. It's too inflexible of an approach in my mind. There are other variables which the auditors may not be aware of.

At that point, however, I'd be questioning the organization's corrective action process, not so much the fact that the issue has recurred...

 

The wife was on a jury for something (I believe, aggravated assault; man assaulted a woman). The jury (initially) swung from one who wanted to let him go (awww, he was sorry for what he did) to one wanted the Death Penalty!
Even something that seems clear cut like speed limit... most law enforcement allows 5-7 mph over that for various contingencies.

I think if a CB tries to maintain too strong of a path on the high road, they may be the only ones on that road.

Certainly no one would desire a CB to recommend certification on an organization that honestly has no desire to improve and develop good quality processes. But having a "one and out" policy (two strikes you're out; etc.) doesn't foster a culture of improvement and excellence. It will instill Fear, resentment, and cause individuals to go back into caves when it comes to auditors/auditing, in my opinion.

 

As mentioned in an earlier post, CBs have their own rules by which clients are bound.

 

Go ahead and believe what you wish...