Issues and ncr's?

i have just been informed by our bsi auitor re iso9000, that NCR's as we know them are now to be called issues in their bsi auidt report and that NCR's are to be what used to be called a major? shhhhhh! what next
anyone else come across this? if so anyone know why its changed?isnt life complicated enough!!

So what do you need to do with an 'issue'?

By the way I've not heard of this before.

Regards,
Simon

i have just been informed by our bsi auitor re iso9000, that NCR's as we know them are now to be called issues ....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That bit at least sounds like good news.

Using weird jargon like 'non-conformity report' is a part of the huge communication problem (or issue ) that exists between the Q profession and the people doing the work.

Of course, user organisations have always been free to choose not to use such jargon.

Using weird jargon like 'non-conformity report' is a part of the huge communication problem (or issue ) that exists between the Q profession and the people doing the work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now just hold on a cotton picking minute Jim; some people make a living out of deciphering 'weird jargon'. Good idea in theory but in your simplistic world quality forums would be virtually redundant. Hadn't thought of that eh?

Regards,
Simon

Normally BSI use the the term 'Observation' to denote findings which are very minor but are still within the spirit of ISO 9000 requirements. A non-conformance is a non-conformance, whether minor or major, if it does not fulfill a requirement of the Standard, therefore a NCR is still a NCR or what ever name you decide to call them. I wouldn't let an external auditor dictate what terms and vocabulary you use in your companies QMS, provided of course your organisation fully understand their meanings.

Thanks for the opportunity to get that little rant of my chest.

Normally BSI use the the term 'Observation' to denote findings which are very minor but are still within the spirit of ISO 9000 requirements. A non-conformance is a non-conformance, whether minor or major, if it does not fulfill a requirement of the Standard, therefore a NCR is still a NCR or what ever name you decide to call them. I wouldn't let an external auditor dictate what terms and vocabulary you use in your companies QMS, provided of course your organisation fully understand their meanings.

Thanks for the opportunity to get that little rant of my chest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hi there bsi still use the term observation, but the term non confromance is now described as an issue by bsi.
The term major ncr has now become the ncr in bsi words i.e. a breakdown of the QMS system
i should stress this is just in their audit report , in the business we continue and will continue to use the terms NCR , CAR etc. as defined by that riveting tome ISO9000:2000. its enoough to drive you to drink

This sounds familiar.....at our last audit I was instructed to amend our internal auditing system and frequency, as it did not fall in line with how the auditors preferred it to be.
Some of our procedures and processes are more critical than others and are audited more frequently - I was informed that our certification body preferred ALL of our procedures to follow this frequency.

As they are auditing to a standard and this does not dictate actual audit frequencies they were out of order - but would not accept it. After a lengthy debate I conceded that they should raise it as a non-conformance, but unfortunately they conceded that they could not raise it as a non-conformance as we were within the boundaries of what the standard dictated and only failed against what they wanted -

In the end it was raised as an observation.

Surely there is enough that we must adhere to, to comply with all of the standards without auditors feeling the need to try and impose more?

My opinion is that if you are comfortable that you meet with the requirements of whatever standard is being audited - stand your ground.

This sounds familiar.....at our last audit I was instructed to amend our internal auditing system and frequency, as it did not fall in line with how the auditors preferred it to be.
Some of our procedures and processes are more critical than others and are audited more frequently - I was informed that our certification body preferred ALL of our procedures to follow this frequency.

As they are auditing to a standard and this does not dictate actual audit frequencies they were out of order  - but would not accept it. After a lengthy debate I conceded that they should raise it as a non-conformance, but unfortunately they conceded that they could not raise it as a non-conformance as we were within the boundaries of what the standard dictated and only failed against what they wanted - 

In the end it was raised as an observation.

Surely there is enough that we must adhere to, to comply with all of the standards without auditors feeling the need to try and impose more?

My opinion is that if you are comfortable that you meet with the requirements of whatever standard is being audited - stand your ground.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks bonno sound advice.
Your auditors seemed to have got their objectives confused. to raise it as an observation....thats fine inf act can often be very helpful, rasining it as an NCR...noooo way!

Is an ‘observation' the same as a ‘recommendation for improvement'? When they note an ‘observation' do they just tell you what is wrong or do they provide ‘best practice' advice on how to fix the problem. If it is the latter I always thought this was classed as consulting and a big no - no.

Regards,
Simon

Simon

Our QMS has been assessed for twelve years now and the Assessment Body have always (at least our Client Managers have) used the 'Observation' classification as a way of prompting us to put an improvement inplace in a procedure or process which we would benefit from. The wording in the report is always "....consideration should be given to....", you don't have to follow the advise but you need a valid reason for not at your next assessment.

I use this classification myself and instruct my auditing team to do likewise as we, the company, really do benefit from it as sometimes another pair of eyes looking over a process/procedure can see areas for improvement.

My thoughts,

Observation 1 (useful):

"Consideration should be given to improving communication of performance to the process team..."

Observation 2 (more useful):

"Consideration should be given to improving communication of process performance to the process team. This could be achieved by the use of a matrix of process performance indicators circulated to team members and a monthly process review meeting."

The second observation is infinitely more useful to the client organisation and if accompanied by a diagram or photocopy of an example process performance matrix and a process review meeting agenda it really would be very useful!

The Certification Body Auditor is fantastically placed to see and share best practice in management systems; not only should it be allowed it should be encouraged. This would add tremendous value to the 3rd party auditing process.

In my experience of both ISO and BRC audits some 3rd party auditors already do-do.

Regards,
Simon

I thought the personal opinion of an auditor didn't come into it? Preference of differing terminology sound very much like personal opinion to me!
What does the standard actually say? Does it REQUIRE issues, or NCR's, or just a method of capturing data relating to materials failing to meet specification / expectation?