The auditor may rationalize the finding as isolated or document it incorrectly as an opportunity for improvement. Soft grading refers to situations when CB auditors have found that a nonconformity exists, but fail to report the finding as nonconformity and categorize it appropriately. Other examples include certified suppliers that continuously fail to improve their low supplier ratings, fail to implement effective corrective actions, or have ongoing unacceptable delivery performance…Īnother aspect under scrutiny is the practice of “soft grading” nonconformities. ![]() For example, instances have been reported where AS/EN 9100-certified organizations have allowed nonconforming material to enter the supply chain (i.e., “quality escapes”), creating serious problems for their customers and the end-users of the products. Unfortunately, there is evidence that a number of certified suppliers have poor quality performance. At the time, I thought this was a little heavy, calling the practice of not writing findings as an “insidious practice”. In that article was a section on “soft-grading”. Many of you will remember the article from Quality Digest that explained the ICOP process. On one hand, this could be interpreted as the suggestion of the “quota’ imposition of findings for each audit. It was conveyed that the Registrar in question NCR reporting was less than 1.4 average per audit while the Industry stands at 3.0 findings per audit. ![]() As with all such criticism there are no solid values or written criteria that anyone can point to as the “Norm” or “Requirement”. ![]() Recently, during ANAB oversight activity at one Registrar it was determined that the overall NCR writing performance by their auditors performing audits in Aerospace was dispirited from the Industry and Oversight Party viewpoint.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |