2004 Scenarios
May's question:
You are auditing the purchasing processes. This process has
a written procedure that refers to a work instruction. It
states that this particular work instruction "may"
be used. The work instruction mentions the Director of
Purchasing, a position which your company has never had. The
Purchasing Manager states that this work instruction was
written by a consultant about ten years ago. Everyone who uses
the work instruction knows to substitute Purchasing Manager
where the Director of Purchasing is indicated. It has worked
without problem for ten years, and the external auditor has
not had a problem with it.
Is this conforming, or non-conforming? Let's hear
from you!
April's question:
One of your processes involve dipping a mold into liquid
plastic. This is a very inexact process, and nonconforming
product is common. Nonconforming product that is discovered is
just thrown in a box for recycling. There is no plans for
determining root cause, nor any particular reaction. Even when
the customer finds nonconforming product, the process is the
same. The customer is sent replacement parts, and there is no
real corrective action. As an auditor, you question the
quality manager whether this is effective corrective action.
She explains that because of the inexactness of the process,
there is really nothing that can be done.
Is this conforming, or non-conforming? Let's hear
from you!
March's question:
About a year ago, your company moved to a new address.
While auditing the calibration process, you find many
documents and forms that still have the old address. Some of
these forms are sent to vendors. You question the calibration
tech, who states that he asked for new forms when you moved.
He was told when new forms are ordered, they will have the new
address. Until then, he is expected to correct the address on
each form when he sends it out. He claims he does not get paid
to to do that, and if it were really important to the company,
they would quit being so cheap, and order the new forms now.
Besides, the vendors should know that they moved by now.
Is this conforming, or non-conforming? Let's hear
from you!
February's question:
You are auditing one of your manufacturing processes. This
particular process casts parts. You are specifically looking
for integration of the quality policy and quality objectives
into the process. You ask the operator about the quality
policy, and he is able to quote it verbatim, and also explain
it. You ask about the objectives, and he explains them as
well. One objective is to have 100% quality parts shipped to
the customer. You ask how he ensures that this happens. He
states that because of this process, he cannot ensure only
good parts get to customers. He tracks internal scrap rates,
and based on his tracking, he is sure that some bad parts get
out. He also states that Quality should be tracking returns
from the customer, although he is not involved in the process,
and does not if any parts return. This process is not exact,
and cannot be expected to make good parts 100% of the time. He
adds that the objectives are really goals, and that they are
trying to get better, but there is just too many avenue
Is this conforming, or non-conforming? Let's hear
from you!
January's question:
You are auditing your company's process for receiving
inspection. Most of the material you buy is classified as
"commodity". You do however, receive steel
that is used in the manufacture of fixtures used to assemble
the product. The incoming steel is checked only for quantity.
The only record of the inspection is the receiving clerk's
initials on the incoming shipper.
Is this conforming, or non-conforming? Let's hear
from you!
