2001 Scenarios

January's question:

You are auditing gage calibration. You find the calibration work instructions are the most recent version, and the calibration technician is well qualified. He has an excellent method of calibration records. In December, he calibrated all the pin gauges used in the shop. Each is uniquely identified, and is marked with the date of calibration and the next calibration due date. You venture out in the shop to compare actual gauges with the record. Your first stop is at a work station where two inspectors are checking parts. Their pin gauges are clearly marked with a serial number, and all have calibration stickers. The stickers indicate they were calibrated on Dec. 15, 2000. The next calibration date is June 15, 2000 [Should be 2001]. You note the obvious discrepancy. You ask the first inspector about the error. She states that she knew the calibration was performed on schedule, and she noticed the error. She figured it was just a typographical error, and was intending to discuss it with the calibration tech the next time she saw him. The second inspector, states he didn't even notice the sticker. The calibration technician is clearly embarrassed.

Is this conforming, or non-conforming?  Let's hear from you!

February's question:

You are auditing purchasing. Their procedure has a revision date that is just over a month old. You add questions on the checklist from the procedure. When you arrive at the purchasing department, you find they are not using the new procedure. The department is unified in their reason. the new procedure had some provisions that they could not perform. That is what happens when someone writes a procedure who does not work in the department. The department, as a group decided to revert back to the older revision, and work to resolve the discrepancies. The department manager shows you an email from the Management Rep, copied to the Document Controller, which authorizes purchasing's decision. The email was from the day before. It is apparent that the Document Controller has not updated the master list yet. 

Is this conforming, or non-conforming?  Let's hear from you!

March's question:

You are auditing 4.14, Corrective and Preventive Actions. There are several corrective actions that relate to scrap generated by employees not following procedures or work instructions. The root cause was identified as "language inconsistencies". Your company has a very diverse employee base, with a wide variety of ethnic, cultural and geographic backgrounds. All procedures and work instructions are written in the local language. Many employees have a difficult time understanding the procedures and work instructions. The corrective action entails either moving the employee that made the scrap to another operation, or releasing the employee. When questioned whether the solution is sufficient, the HR director indicates that there is little more that can be done.

Is this conforming, or non-conforming?  Let's hear from you!

April's question:

Your company manufactures and sells industrial piping that is sold in either 8 foot, or 20 foot lengths, depending the application. Due to the fact that the ends of the piping tend to get nicked, and the piping must have threads cut at the installation site, it is customary to manufacture the pipe with about 2 inches extra length. For consistency's sake, a stop was added to the cut-off saw at 8 feet 2 inches and 20 feet two inches. These distances were measured once, when installed [using a common tape measure], and have not been measured since. The calibration technician states that because they cut the pipes 2 inches long, an in-house specification, neither the stops or the tape measures need to be calibrated. Should a stop move, it would be obvious because the old stop location would be visible. Also, the installers, company employees, would complain if the lengths were short. Long lengths may cost more money, but will not cause a complaint. The calibration technician says there are no records of any type for calibration of the stops, or the tape.

Is this conforming, or non-conforming?  Let's hear from you!

Response # 1

May's question:

You are auditing Corrective actions and are examining your Corrective Action Requests (CARs). Of the ten you are examining, there are two that catch your eye. Both are based on customer complaints. Both deal with late shipments. The first CAR shows a root cause as the customer is late paying the bill. The Quality Manager explains that every CAR from this customer is due to late shipments. The shipments are late because the product is in "credit hold". When the customer pays the bill, the product is then shipped. The second CAR deals with a customer that continually changes the shipping date, even when he is told it could not be shipped any sooner than originally agreed on. The root cause is listed as "customer changing ship dates without agreement". The Quality Manager states the customers don't like the completed CARs, but they accept them.

Is this conforming, or non-conforming?  Let's hear from you!

June's question:

You are auditing purchasing. The work instruction for record keeping has all the Records listed, shows who is supposed to keep which record, how they are to be filed, where they are to be stored, and how long each is to be kept. It identifies the Purchasing Manager as responsible for keeping the Purchase Orders, so for a sampling you choose this record keeping activity to audit. You start with the Purchasing Manager and ask to see completed Purchase Orders. You are shown the filed copies and notice that they are in filed in alphabetical order by Supplier name. The Work Instruction states they would be filed in numerical order. When you question this, the Purchasing Manager states “It’s more logical to file them this way so we can find them when we need them. Show me in the ISO standard where it says I have to file these in numerical order and I’ll do it, otherwise I’m going to do it this way.” 

Is this conforming, or non-conforming?  Let's hear from you!

Response # 1

July's question:

You are still auditing purchasing. One of the auditees is the Purchasing Clerk. The Purchasing Manager is also at the interview. You ask about the purchasing procedures for vendor control. The Purchasing Clerk says there is only one procedure, the one that governs how vendor records are maintained, and how vendors are evaluated. The Purchasing Manager corrects the Purchasing Clerk, indicating there is also one for initial selection and qualification of new vendors. The Purchasing Manager explains that the Purchasing Clerk is not involved in this procedure and does not need to know about the procedure. The Purchasing Clerk just shrugs her shoulders.

Is this conforming, or non-conforming?  Let's hear from you!

August's question:

You are auditing manufacturing with the scope of 4.9 (QS-9000). Along one wall is a door that is clearly marked "Emergency Exit". It also has an exit sign above the door. The door is blocked with a rather large piece of machinery. You are sure the fire regulations do not allow exits to be blocked, which is a violation of 4.9 c).  When brought to the auditees attention, he states that unless you can quote the part of the fire code that prohibits the blocked exit, you cannot write the non-conformance.

Is this conforming, or non-conforming?  Let's hear from you!

September's question:

You are a newly appointed auditor. You are auditing your company’s Corrective Action procedure. You notice a considerable of corrective actions from the previous audit of document control, just last month. Each of them involved a failure to review documents under their control every three months. The procedure cited is for Document Review. Most of the corrective actions have been closed, but there are two still open. You decide to look at the Document Review procedure. To your amazement, you find the procedure was removed six months ago. All of the corrective actions written during the last internal audit were to a non-existent procedure.

Is this conforming, or non-conforming?  Let's hear from you!

October's question:

You are auditing 4.14, Corrective and Preventive Actions. A Continuous Improvement Suggestion (Preventive Action) was initiated since the last audit (either surveillance or internal) that incorporated a new Customer Complaint Action (CCA). The CCA is designed to expedite the customer complaint resolution process. There is no procedure for this process by itself. The quality manager states that the CCA is governed by the 4.14 procedure, which was updated to include the CCA. In reviewing the updated procedure (that meets all 4.5 requirements), you notice the only change to the procedure was the inclusion of the CCA to the Reference Documents section. The body of the procedure does not mention the CCA, or its use.

Is this conforming, or non-conforming?  Let's hear from you!

November's question:

As part of the audit, you are auditing the second shift. You are following a control plan through the machining department. You notice a team leader has a folder marked "Procedures" at his workstation. The procedure is obsolete. When questioned about the procedure, the team leader responds that he knows the procedure is obsolete. He is the only one that uses it, and he only uses it to keep performance notes on the back of the pages. These notes are important in the performance evaluation of his team, and will be discarded after the next round of performance evaluations.

Is this conforming, or non-conforming?  Let's hear from you!

December's question:

You are the HR clerk performing an audit of production. According to procedures, all production employees involved in machining operations are required to have mandatory SPC training twice a year. The last session was just two weeks, and previous was about six months earlier. As you review the attendance records, you notice one name in particular. This individual's name was on both lists, yet you know (being the HR clerk) that this person was hired only two months ago. When the production manager was questioned about this, he simply states that you should not have that information and accuse you of using illegally obtained information to bias the audit. He abruptly ends the audit stating that if you "write him up", he will turn you in for misusing confidential information.

Is this conforming, or non-conforming?  Let's hear from you!