Where's the "effect" when "ineffective" is reported?

I've noticed that CB audit reports contain the phrase "could not be shown to be fully effective", in the non-conformity report. Rarely, however, is the effect of the non-conformity ever reported. For example: a form isn't signed, per a procedure requirement. Yes, a strict non-conformity, but how can it be reported as ineffective? If the form were a money check/cheque, then yes, the form can't be processed. If it's a QMS form being audited, IMHO there's likely to be very little impact on effectiveness...

It's traditional to report audit nc's as;

• The requirement
• The source of the requirement
• The evidence, and
• The source of the evidence.

Maybe it's time to add the "effect" of this on product, process and customers...


Your thoughts?

 

I agree.
Too often, auditors issue non-conformances for trivial things that have no effect on the product or service. Too often these NCs are internally imposed, like signatures or information on a form and are even more trivial than actual standard requirements... They hardly warrant correction let alone corrective action to prevent re-occurrence.

This would be a sea change for the industry and help improve the value of the standards and auditors...much more so than the rewording that currently goes on

 

Exactly so, Bev. I'm amazed at the dross which is reported as individual nc's and then bundled as "majors" or presented with vapid statements which suggest the system is broken...