1. Nonconformity of the lack of
procedures to determine the criteria for product acceptance
Company A, a small business firm, has made inspection procedures, describing
sample size, items to be inspected, ways of each measurement and each
allowance. The documents are under control of document control (4.2.3
clause), being reviewed and approved by its quality manager. The documents
have made according to requirements of c) of 7.1 clause which requires
to determine the criteria for product acceptance.
Seeing the documents, an assessor pointed out as nonconformity that
there were no documents, which described how to determine the criteria
for product acceptance.
But there is no requirement of making procedures how to determine the
criteria for product acceptance.
His reasoning of the pointing out as nonconformity was that if the manager
changes, without standardized decision-making procedures, the acceptance
criteria would be unstable.
But the reasoning is nonsense, because even if the decision-making procedures
are made, some person would make it and the person would be changed
then the same thing can be said. All decision-making are made by some
persons and the persons will be changed. The assessor lacks of commonsense.
2. Zero nonconformity in an internal audit
Company B, a small business firm, made a couple of internal audits
and resolved all nonconformities detected, before the formal ISO9001
management system formally started.
A formal internal audit was held after the system started and naturally
no nonconformity was found.
Seeing the reports that said that there was no nonconformity, an assessor
said it was incredible, and without detected nonconformities, improvements
of quality systems could not be anticipated.
You can improve product quality, for an example, by installing a new
high precision machine even if there is no product nonconformity.
Likewise, without nonconformities, improvements of quality management
systems are possible. The comment is also nonsense. |