The number of non-conformances that appear on an audit report are not necessarily a reflection of how well your facility or staff have performed on an audit. A long repot is not necessarily an indication of poor performance.
Here’s why:
Not all non-conformances are created equal.
A company that has failed to conduct internal audits will have one major non-conformance on their report that states as such.
Another company that are up-to-date with internal audits will have records to show, which gives the auditor opportunity to notice some areas for improvement on how the audits were conducted or corrective actions investigated.
The company who conducts internal audits is behaving in a way which better aligns with the intent of a management system, but may end up with more non-conformances on their audit report.
A two for one deal.
Every auditor writes their reports in their style, depending on their experience and personal preferences.
Whilst one auditor might list two non-conformances for two document control issues identified, another might raise one non-conformances relating to the document control process, citing the two examples.
Listing each document control issue as individual non-conformances can make the report easier to read and respond to. The auditor might chose to do this if they get the feeling there is no systemic issue to address.
One non-conformances indicating an issue with the document control process would make it clear to the reader that a full root cause analysis must be completed in order to adequately address the problems that have been identified.
A higher number of non-conformances might actually indicate a well-operated management system.
Standards are written to cover a huge range of industries and types of organisations. In theory, one size fits all. In practice, however, a good auditor is able to adapt to the circumstances of the organisation.
A company new to the management systems audit process may end up with fewer non-conformances as the system has not had enough time to ‘ripen’ and produce many records.
A company that has been through a decade of audits should have a fairly good working system in place. The auditor will be able to drill down more into the ‘nitty-gritty’ of operations. So whilst there might be more non-conformances on these audit reports, they can be really useful opportunities for improvement.
There are definitely better ways to judge performance than the length of an audit report.
Looking at the way your staff act upon non-conformances identified is one example of a better way to judge performance. What you really want is a productive ‘quality’ culture in your business. This is the way you continually improve, and ensure the same issues don’t arise in the next audit.
Don’t beat yourself up (or your staff!) for the number of non-conformances raised at audits!
Need help getting staff enthusiastic about quality?
Q&A NATA accreditation consultants lead interactive workshops in plain English, designed to show staff how they can get involved in continuous improvement!
コメント