1. Quality policy
Company A received the ISO9001: 2000 assessment. The assessor pointed
out a minor nonconformity about quality policy and requested the corrective
action. He said that in the sentence of quality policy the phrase of
g provide a framework for establishing and reviewing quality objectivesh
(the same phrase with c) in 5.3 of ISO9001: 2000) was not written.
The clause has five requirements from a) to e). The first two clauses
dealt with the content with the policy itself and the rest dealt with
how it is to be used for setting quality objectives, to be communicated
and to be reviewed.
Therefore the requirement by the assessor that in the quality policy
should have the phrase in it is false (refer to gFunny descriptions
of quality policy written on a bulletin board: Apr.4w, 2003:in the individual
clauses relating ISO9001: 2000 in this Web).
2. Special processes
Company B is an engineering company. Therefore it has no manufacturing
processes and it excluded special processes when it got the certification
of ISO9001: 1994.
But its certification body issued its guidelines for assessments of
ISO9001: 2000, which say any processes that should be done by qualified
persons must be handled as special processes. An assessor who came
to the company, found the qualified persons did some engineering processes
and said according to the guidelines special processes could not excluded
for the company.
But the guidelines ignore ISO9001: 2000, because it defines special
process are where nonconformity of the resulting product cannot be
readily or economically verified in NOTE 3 in 3.4.1 of ISO9000: 2000.
The processes done in the company could be easily verified. Therefore
according to the Standard, there was no special process. Is the guidelines
have higher authority than ISO9001: 2000? It is nonsense!
3.Significient environmental aspect
An assessor said in the assessment of Company C that an environmental
aspect, which relates environmental legislation and regulations, had
to be handled as a significant environmental aspect. He said it basis
was guidelines issued from his body.
But the definition of significant environmental aspect in 3.3 of ISO14001:
1996 has not such restriction. Moreover the management representative
of the company has had information that in the draft of new ISO14001:
200x the descriptions that the same environmental performance will
not automatically to be significant environmental aspect for any company
and it depends on individual characteristics of firms.
Then the management representative required for the certification
body to show formal documented guidelines. But he finally found such
documented guidelines did not exist.
It became clear that the assessor bluffed.
Moreover the manager of the body was a bad loser, because he still
insisted that no company had registered by the body without accordance
with the bodyfs rules. But I informed the management representative
that one of my clients had the registration by the body without accordance
of the rule. Then he found the manager also buffed and decided to
not follow the rule.
At the final assessment the assessor did the assessment without a
single word about significant environmental aspect.
4. Personal training record
An assessor pointed out as nonconformity in the assessment of Company
D that it had no personal training sheets. ISO9001: 2000 requires
training records, but no detailed record forms.
The management representative asked the basis of the nonconformity.
The assessor showed checklists made by the body.
Then the management representative inquired to the manager of the
body whether the checklist had more authority than iSO9001: 2000.
Finally the manager admitted his mistake and withdrew the nonconformity.
|