FJXFGJXFH

1/31/13
Internal Auditor: Case Study: Incoming Inspection
QualityGurus.com Internal Auditor Forums Internal Auditor Forum Case Study: Incoming Inspection
Search forums Display replies in nested form
This forum has a limit to the number of forum postings you can make in a given time period - this is currently set at 2 posting(s) in 1 day Case Study: Incoming Inspection
by Michelle Williams - Monday, January 12, 2009, 05:24 AM
Part of a global company, the product range includes white or coloured sheets sold on to customers for use within the building industry. A minimum order of 40,000 sheets is required for shipping from another European country. There is one preferred supplier that the company uses who is registered to ISO9001 and ISO14001 and audited on an annual basis. All approval, review and audit documents were in place. No problems were highlighted. An internal audit carried out of the Purchasing Process (7.4) identified that there was a defined process in place for purchasing materials that was being followed accurately. All purchasing information was correct and staff carrying out the purchasing function were fully trained and demonstrated exceptionally high levels of competence and understanding of the products. On investigating the purchase of the coloured sheets as mentioned above, the auditors noted that the incoming inspection carried out was limited to a colour match against sample for each crate and brief visual inspection of the outside of the sheets. A major non-conformance was raised identifying that the product was not inspected adequately to be able to detect any non-conforming products. (Clause 7.4.3) The Warehouse staff concerned argued that they would not be able to check each individual sheet - all 40,000 of them before accepting the order because it was too onerous. Instead, they check the product at the time of picking before packing and despatch to the customer. The supplier was happy with this and accepted our word of any problems found. The audit team still felt this was not enough incoming inspection or appropriate preventive action, despite all the supplier checks and evaluation and 12 years of trouble free provision of products from that particular supplier. Are they correct?
Reply
Count of Likes: 0
100% Free Accounting

WaveApps.com Perfect for Small Businesses. Get Wave Accounting Now!
Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

by rajiv saxena - Saturday, January 17, 2009, 01:21 AM
beautiful problem and well described. All internal auditors want 100 % of micro activities to be done by others and shown /proved to them. Natural to auditors and may be required also. Issue is what is the ultimate goal? if no complaints from utlitimate user, or market or any other corner exist, disturbing present set up is being harmed by the IA'r report. However if even an iota of doubt exist on quality exist, another round of feedback should be taken. Finally to sort out the issue from ISO angle, the best option is to record the procedure for this sub process in detail, as per exiting system and go stick funalmental of ISO 9001:2000 i.e. to "say what U want to do, then do what U said"
Show parent | Reply
Count of Likes: 0
www.qualitygurus.com/courses/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=2287 1/18
1/31/13

by Shireesh Jain - Monday, January 19, 2009, 03:12 AM
Well its important to know the impact of the defect. on customer whatever may be the occurence frequency of defect. In my opinion it is better to use a tool called FMEA (Failure mode and effect analysis) which helps in calculating the Risk Priority No. by multiplication of occurence , severity and detection all rated in the scale of 1 -10. If the RPN goes above the predefined level action needs to be taken. Or else based on agreed acceptance levels with customer a sampling plan can be framed to check the material at incomming stage.
Show parent | Reply
Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

by Arif Ashfaque - Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 01:29 AM
Dear All, We have conducted an internal audit to check the quality of civil structural pedestal. Background: Inspection befor Erection Observation:-1).Some inspected documents were missing. 2).Completion approval of third party was not yet conformed. 3).Test report was pending. 4).Hand over of work formate was not yet filled. Classification-Recorded observations was minor exept number 2 comments. Applicable ISO 9001 clause-7.1,7.2.3 Thanks,
Show parent | Reply

by ENOCK CHEPSERGON - Thursday, January 31, 2013, 04:20 AM
BACK GROUND:It was bestowed upon as as an auditing company to carry out an audit of a construction company that was to build a 12 storey house. OBSERVATION:It was observed that the construction company had not been registered with the relevant ministry,it did not have a central office,and some documents were missing while others were torn.The company did not also have registered qualified engineers and architectures. CLASSIFICATION:Due to our observation and investigations,we conclude that the observation was a major nonconformatory and alot need to be done. APPLICABLE ISO 9001:clause-7.1.7.2.3
Show parent | Reply

by Norman Huston - Monday, January 19, 2009, 03:01 PM
The audit team still felt this was not enough incoming inspection or appropriate preventive action, despite all the supplier checks and evaluation and 12 years of trouble free provision of products from that particular supplier. Are they correct? Answer: Based upon the type of product being inspected this time i believe the sampling inspection that the company was doing from the vendor was adequate. However, i would review any customer complaints, see what the customer feed back was prior to making a final decision as to weather they were non compliant. if indeed they have had no complaints or non conformances in the past 12 years i would not make this a major non conformance against the company for the Standard Clause 7.4.3. I would make it a observation and allow the company to review their inspection procedures to ensure they are adequate. Quality is to have a satisfied customer. It would appear from the described case here that the customer has been and still is satisfied.
Show parent | Reply
Count of Likes: 0
1/31/13

by Michelle Williams - Monday, January 26, 2009, 10:47 AM
Exactly! We have lots of satisfied customers. We finally agreed on no non-conformance for this problem, but we did outline Opportunities for Improvement as follows: The warehouse team asked the auditors to spend a half day with them when there was an incoming delivery to see the problems first hand. Additional colour matching swatches were made, and large size samples were made for the wall. Top management took 3 members of staff to visit the manufacturing site to see first hand the inspection that takes place on their premises. (We are very lucky being a small division or a larger organisation).
Show parent | Reply

by Mark Parks - Friday, May 25, 2012, 08:15 PM
Incoming inspection of product is very important and should always be documented of any defects or whether it is acceptable or not. This step of inspection is in my opionion very important in the company i work for which is a food processing plant..if we catch a problem at this stage then a lot of issues are alliminated. No recalls or putting product under quality control for defects, foreign objects or etc.
Mark E Parks
Show parent | Reply

by BOLARINWA SATOYE - Monday, December 17, 2012, 06:39 AM
Income inspection is very paramount in an organization and there must be documents that we state the defects.i worked in fabrication plant,in which our raw materials is angle irons , income inspection must done on them in order to know whether it conforms with the standards.
Show parent | Reply

by Luis Gilberto Maldonado Briones - Sunday, April 5, 2009, 01:54 PM
I'm totally agree with Norman, they cannot inspect any single sheet the supplier sends, besides they have evaluated the supplier performance without any problems for over 12 years and must have the records of recents inspections, due to the simplicity of the actual sampling process, it is not very reliable, their sampling process must be revised and improved, but I take it as a minor non conformity, nothing that affects severely the QMS.
Show parent | Reply

by DALJIT GUJRAL - Thursday, January 5, 2012, 08:19 PM
I think preparation is the key for the incoming inspection. My organisation is currently preparing documents for the upcoming FDA audit. Preparations for Incoming inspections are on full flow. Things which needs to be addressed are looked after properly and the pending deviations are being closed with all the supporting data. Overall inspections makes organisation strong and more reliable to meet the standards.
Show parent | Reply

by Manoj Krishnan - Saturday, December 5, 2009, 12:22 PM
Dear All Iam working in an edible oil industry.We have many valuable customers who are giving the feed
1/31/13
back of our products to us.If any customer is fasced any problem ,then we are taking it as a complaint .Then we will find out the problem like what? when? where? how?....We are calling the complaint customers to our company and shows them the handling processes.Hygeinic all things.We have the certificate of ISO 9001:2008 & ISO 22000:2005.So we are caring our products that much.We have many Hazard analysis,That we are following for the safety of the products.
Show parent | Reply

by Nitin Goyal - Friday, September 2, 2011, 12:20 AM
Agreed , based on the extract of QMS . Customers are the only one to fulfill its intented use & no complaint.
Show parent | Reply

by Dave Ketankumar Jyotindrakumar - Friday, January 20, 2012, 08:26 AM
Case dealt with unbiased approach, System for Sampling and Inspection may have been decreased with years of experience, but outcome of the audit shows that major Non-conformance which seems serious negligence and over confidence in inspection. Shall be treated as Major Non-Conformance
Show parent | Reply

by Jameela Abdulla - Friday, April 6, 2012, 08:49 AM
I agree with you they are correct, they must test the sheet, take samples of material to cover 5%. and as the company deals with these quantities it is better to have a strategy or a way to check in line with the requirements of ISO.
Show parent | Reply
Count of Likes: 0

by Asad Ullah - Friday, December 14, 2012, 08:51 AM
Yes, This is a major non conformance. I think a process shall overcome the deficiency.
Show parent | Reply

by Gaurav Singh - Thursday, July 5, 2012, 02:16 AM
During manufacturing of a pharmaceutical product we commonly encounter with different batch sizes but we record the operations on a given and same set of format. At times for a small batch size we skip one or two steps or vary from what is required to be done which is not documented. Practices like these are taken to increase the output, how can it affect during inspection of records during an audit?
Show parent | Reply

by Guna Sekaran - Friday, February 13, 2009, 04:44 AM
I suggest to do Measurement System Analysis (R&R Study) for the visual inspection, if it will not meets the MSA requirements, the Inspection method needs to be improved. This action needs to be done to get a delighted customer.
1/31/13

Show parent | Reply

by Jayesh M.P. - Thursday, March 5, 2009, 12:41 AM
Here the NCR is raised because the organization has not established / implemented the inspection or other activities for ensuring that purchased product meets specified purchase requirements. Auditor observed that the current inspection alone is insufficient to check for specified purchase requirements. 12 years history , though it was good, need not repeat in future and such situation , ie, delivery of non conforming product may hamper customer satisfaction. This appears to be a valid NCR though one can argue on it on different grounds.
Show parent | Reply
Count of Likes: 0

by Roberto Decano Asuncion II - Friday, March 6, 2009, 02:46 AM
I should say that this serves as minor NCR. Establishing and implimenting inspection process or any other activities needed to ensure purchased product conformity. Where organization or its customer purposes verification at supplier's premises, the organization must specify in purchase information based on verification arrangement and method of product release for the appropriate preventive action. Despite all the suppliers checks and evaluation and 12 years of trouble free provision of products from the particular supplier. Large organization or smaller business industry depends on their customer and therefore should understand current and future needs, should meet cutomer requirements and strive to exceed customer expectation enable to meet customer satisfaction.
Show parent | Reply

by Ghafoor Ahmad - Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 02:20 AM
Very nice! To maintained the goodwill of organization it is very impotant to accept the nonconformance and take the necessary preventive measure to avoid the repetition of same problem. It will also help the organization to achieve the Zero Defect or 100% reliability.
Show parent | Reply

by PRATIK NAYEK - Wednesday, May 4, 2011, 02:52 PM
Yes i agree with you auditing also depends on internal control and goodwill of the organisation.Where an organisation has an effective internal control system it will ease the work of the auditor hell only have to perform some surprise checks to maintain consistency of his report.
Show parent | Reply

by PRATIK NAYEK - Wednesday, May 4, 2011, 02:52 PM
Yes i agree with you auditing also depends on internal control and goodwill of the organisation.Where an organisation has an effective internal control system it will ease the work of the auditor hell only have to perform some surprise checks to maintain consistency of his report.
Show parent | Reply

by vn babu - Tuesday, August 16, 2011, 06:06 AM
Dear sir,
1/31/13
Improve inspection procedure breifly to cover all areas. It is very important to every organisation.
Show parent | Reply

by tim lonkey - Monday, April 6, 2009, 03:08 PM
I would agree that a major finding is not appropriate for this case study. I think that the audit team in this situation was not following the scope of the audit. The lack of any evidence that the current inspection methods have not been adequate and the customer's satisfaction with the product should outweigh any personal opinion by the audit team as to how the product should be inspected. I think an observation to review the inspection process for possible improvements would be a more realistic finding. tlonkey
Show parent | Reply

by Harihara Ramalingam - Saturday, April 25, 2009, 07:05 AM
Yes , tha auditor decision is correct in point of standard, but .. For any incoming inspection, there must be a procedure which covers the parameter to be inspected, sampling to be checked & authorizing for the same. If the inspector has not done w.r.to procedure, then it can't be accepted eventhough the supplier is supplying without many years. Since the problem might arose wherever... But while weighting the non conformance, I prefer to go for Minor ..Since the supplier is audited frequently & supplying without any problem for more than decade. Hari
Show parent | Reply

by Sheikh Mohsin Ali - Sunday, April 26, 2009, 01:50 AM
Thank you for sharing! Well the case is a bit interesting! However I would not raise a MAJOR Non Conformity as 7.4.3 simply bcoz, it is not clear from the previous history that they had problems with the SUPPLIER. I would dig further in the Following and make an OBSERVATION-ONLY DUE to LACK of OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE : 1. Supplier Evaluation & Re-evaluation 2. Any Customer Complaints that relates to this SUPPLIER? 3. Check the Local STATUTORY and REGULATORY requirements for such purchase. 4. Also have an eye on the Analysis of Data related to this particular Supplier. I hope this will clarify a bit. It cannot be a MAJOR Non Conformity.
Show parent | Reply

by Asif Shakoor - Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 11:52 AM
In my Opinion its important to know the impact of the defect. on customer whatever may be the occurence frequency of defect. I Sujjest them to use a tool called Failure mode and effect analysis which helps in calculating the Risk Priority No. by multiplication of occurence , severity and detection all rated in the scale of 1 -10. If the RPN goes above the predefined level
1/31/13
action needs to be taken. Or else based on agreed acceptance levels with customer a sampling plan can be framed to check the material at incomming stage.
Show parent | Reply

by Drici Akomi Isaac Newton - Monday, May 11, 2009, 04:18 AM
Personally i feel it is very encouaging to accept non conformance and rather take the necessary preventive actions to ensure that such issues do not arise again, and the company should also take necessary steps in improving the management style of all their staffs and there assets plus equipments should be monitored and stock control cards should be in place to ensure daily stock taking.
Show parent | Reply

by Gregory Masnick - Thursday, May 28, 2009, 09:19 AM
Just as with any form of audit, the auditee has the right to reply or rebut the audit findings. Especially if an NCR has been issued. You can either abate the problem and respond accordingly or you rebut the findings and report that the findings are incorrect based on information that you provide. In this case, I would rebut the findings and provide customer satisfaction evidence as the basis. Keep in mind that auditors basically get paid to find something wrong. Unfortunately, this is a common attitude that I am finding prevalent especially here in the US.
Show parent | Reply
Count of Likes: 0
Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection- Requirement

by Ravi Prakash Behara - Thursday, May 28, 2009, 12:47 PM
In this discussion till now, the question on requirement is not mentioned. Just in case of purchasing process, was there a requirement defined for the incoming inspection?. if there was one defined is it being followed? If the requirement is to verify each sheet as per the defined process, this needs to be recorded as a major non-confirmance. If the requirement is to verify only sample and the sample size is defined, this needs to be minor, still a non confirmance. Audit needs to be limited to requirement Vs result/Action. The argument of being oneous cannot be taken as a reason for deviating a defined process. If there is no defined process and no defined sample size for the incoming inspection, this becomes only a observation and auditor can remark this as observation for improvement. ( No requirement--No Non-Confirmance). The relavence of the requirement or how tough is to follow the requirement should be beyond he scope of audit. Audit should be intended to improve confirmance rather than justification of non confirmance.
Show parent | Reply

by Ian Moig - Monday, June 29, 2009, 11:03 AM
I would first comment on the alleged inspection on picking. This is not timely in my opinion. The purchasing information defines the requirements for approval of product. I would have investigated this initially. If this is a "standard" product and this supplier has the confidence of the supplier organisation, as verified in the auditor's statement, I feel that the initial receipt inspection carried out could be considered sufficient. There is no non conformance here and I would only consider an improvement notice if the auditor witnessed a problem with the product.
Show parent | Reply

by AMIT CHADDHA - Thursday, July 2, 2009, 12:42 PM
First of all we need to know the gravity and impact of defects. We can use many quality tools to drill down the pain area and
1/31/13
impact of defects. Pareto chart, FMEA, RCA, Control Chart are the common tools for this purpose. We should prioritize the area in which we will assess and work to minimize risk. If RPN (Risk Priority Numbers) goes above the predefined level then action needs to be taken.
Show parent | Reply

by Hrant Sahakyan - Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 08:35 AM
I think the gravity in this context is less important, the gravity can increase at any time (regardless they have had happy relationship over 12 years or not). Indeed the case is tricky and classic (it's a good one). From the IA point of view, what does matter here is the process, and not the particular transaction. The question to ask is - is there an adequate inspection process in place or not (again regardless there was a problem or not, but there is a risk, that can be a problem. the RISK this is all about - identify the risks and manage them to limit the impact). Do they see it as a risk, how do they manage that risk? Clearly the case says that there is no adequate inspection process in place - then the auditors comment has to be you should have an adequate inspection process in place, point'. What will be the adequate process (sampling or other) is another question, is outside the scope. Is that a non conformity? - Definitely YES. There is a risk and it is not being managed. Is that a Minor or a Major nonconformity? That also will depend on the case. In this present case maybe a minor, but in many other cases it can be MAJOR.
Thanks Hrant
Show parent | Reply

by dione nkgoatau - Wednesday, July 14, 2010, 09:49 AM
yes i agree
Show parent | Reply

by dione nkgoatau - Wednesday, July 14, 2010, 10:04 AM
our company is the supplier of telecoms cards so then we outsource plain body cards from the other suppliers .our sampling is done byh taking the representataive samples from lot size.the problem encounterd most is during our in processes after realising the stock to stores.it is very difficult to detect the non conformities as sometimes u find them being very below under or they will be caught during our in process inspections..our suppliers are certified...sometimes the deficiencies are mostly causing havoc situations between departments more especially when there is customer complaints we got the best quality team available to detect any non conformities where samples taken,test, measurements are done .
Show parent | Reply
Count of Likes: 0

by Ananda Beloshe - Friday, November 20, 2009, 10:07 AM
It should be minor NCR as per 7.4.3 If company have to make long term business; they should improve there incoming inspection procedure- may be sampling inspection but they should maintain corrective & preventive action for nonconforming products. Without arguing they must try continual improvement 8.5.1 in this regard.
Show parent | Reply
Count of Likes: 0
1/31/13

by Satheesh Kumar - Wednesday, December 9, 2009, 06:48 AM
Initial step is to know the impact of the defect on end user. ie the customer. Since the product quality is acceptable to customer whatever may be the occurence or frequency of defect it is ok. In my opinion it is better to use a tool called FMEA (Failure mode and effect analysis), based on the RPN No. the occurence , severity and detection can be rated in the scale of 1 -10. If the RPN goes above the predefined level action must be to be taken. Or else based on agreed acceptance of sampling plan the materails shall be checked at incomming stage.
Show parent | Reply

by Radhakrishnan P.G. - Monday, December 28, 2009, 02:34 AM
Part of a global company, the product range includes white or coloured sheets sold on to customers for use within the building industry. A minimum order of 40,000 sheets is required for shipping from another European country. There is one preferred supplier that the company uses who is registered to ISO9001 and ISO14001 and audited on an annual basis. All approval, review and audit documents were in place. No problems were highlighted. An internal audit carried out of the Purchasing Process (7.4) identified that there was a defined process in place for purchasing materials that was being followed accurately. All purchasing information was correct and staff carrying out the purchasing function were fully trained and demonstrated exceptionally high levels of competence and understanding of the products. On investigating the purchase of the coloured sheets as mentioned above, the auditors noted that the incoming inspection carried out was limited to a colour match against sample for each crate and brief visual inspection of the outside of the sheets. A major non-conformance was raised identifying that the product was not inspected adequately to be able to detect any nonconforming products. (Clause 7.4.3) The Warehouse staff concerned argued that they would not be able to check each individual sheet - all 40,000 of them before accepting the order because it was too onerous. Instead, they check the product at the time of picking before packing and despatch to the customer. The supplier was happy with this and accepted our word of any problems found. The audit team still felt this was not enough incoming inspection or appropriate preventive action, despite all the supplier checks and evaluation and 12 years of trouble free provision of products from that particular supplier. Are they correct?
Show parent | Reply

by TIM ERNEST NCHAMCHAM - Wednesday, April 7, 2010, 11:51 AM
To my opinion they were doing correct but the QMS was not effective because for 12 years it was already a routine exercise and they failed in carrying out desk audit to review their records. This would have improved on their checks and modification of the approach. I also agree with most of the reaction to the forum in the process of identification of the error and subsequent corrective approach.
Show parent | Reply

by Julius Caesar Ssemyalo - Sunday, March 27, 2011, 08:14 AM
The back ground is clear and the clause is correct. However to me it is an Observation For Improvement because it was working fairly well. There was need for "continual" improvement like others have observed. Having an interval for sampling a representative sample. Documenting what happens at the Supplier's side prior to shipment and seeking customer's observations and feed back on the Product and service. Clear documentation of highlighted areas would contribute to a high quality management sytem.
Show parent | Reply

by Jaliya Chathuranga - Sunday, February 28, 2010, 04:22 AM
Dear,
1/31/13
it is better to develop systematic sapling method by calculating sampling interval as desired.then it is easy to check necessary quantity during the loading with out until waiting all production come.Before doing sampling method, i believe you would better draw the forced field analysis and identify what are the driving forces and restraining forces which affected to this.then use brainstorming for minimizing the retraining forces and you can add this to the 7.4.3 clause.i believe doing this method, issue can be eliminated.
Show parent | Reply

by Eduardo Martnez - Friday, March 5, 2010, 02:39 PM
Of course when develop the inspection method, we need to use the best technics, using the adecuate references to check for visual inspections, there are some standard plaques for the colors, in this case a 100% can not be perform by Incoming Inspection, we uses an AQL instead. I will seggest to use this as as non conformance.
Show parent | Reply

by Moustafa Abu-ajameih - Saturday, January 29, 2011, 12:07 AM
I think its not amajor NCR. since they didn't receive complaints ;we need to improve the inspection procedure to cover all area of the function use of the product"sheet", but if any complaint will appear , NCR should be raised thanks..
Show parent | Reply

by rajagopalan umakanthan - Thursday, February 24, 2011, 03:22 AM
I think this is not a non conformance we can call it potencial improvement based on certain thinks to be incorparated in the incoming inspection procedure that sampling plan / sampling qty and methods to check percentage wise to be done based on the observation the outcome to be delivered
Show parent | Reply

by Jacqueline Hedger - Friday, March 4, 2011, 01:53 AM
This should be marked as an observation, the sheets would have been quality inspected prior to delivery, Incoming goods only need a sample inspection the amount should be based on supplier preformance over the 12 years, when handling such large amounts it is impossible to inspect every sheet, we have thousands of lens arrive at our goods in dept, inspection off them all is impossible and would delay the working process a sample check is done, the remaining checks are within the production area, where the operator handles goods 100%
Show parent | Reply

by Melvin Stewart - Tuesday, April 26, 2011, 02:32 PM
I would Agree that its not a Major NCR but it will need to be addressed a better incoming inspection is definitly a must, but the customer is happy with the product that all that matters. But it is definitly an Corrective action for the internal process.
Show parent | Reply

by Muhammad Faizan Asad - Monday, May 30, 2011, 05:57 AM
It is very important to be ready before the incoming inspection. Beacuse at the audit time the system should be in working condition that is the reason why external auditors send an e-mail to the company to be visited so that they can make their
1/31/13
system in order. It is better for both the auditors and the auditee.
Show parent | Reply

by sudhir Barve - Sunday, September 11, 2011, 12:58 AM
its very important to Auditee to make sure about their systems,process and internal defficiencies of their own dept before Audit. that is most required thing to know the Audit scheduled.this thingwill help to Auditee and Auditor durring Audit.
Show parent | Reply

by Ir. Amir M. Shaikh - Sunday, September 18, 2011, 09:55 AM
As per the scenario highlighted the auditor (in my opinion) should have raised the minor NCR as per clause 7.4.3. Also, from the client point of view, they should improve the sampling and inspection procedures, by online or more frequent sampling / inspection of items (sheets). As this is a continuous improvement activity, it will also help to determine the sampling / inspection rate (Reference to Clause 8.5.1.
Show parent | Reply

by Llaned Morales - Thursday, September 22, 2011, 04:14 PM
Background: During on incoming Inspection company fallowed the Quality Management System. They have kept all records of outgoing and incoming product. They have their quality policy, quality procedures, and all employees have been trained to ensure customer satisfaction. Personnel are trained to indentify the product and follow packaging requirements. Observation: It is impossible for quality personnel to look for defect on every sheet. Also this company has good communication with their customer and the customer agreed with their packaging procedure. The company has fallowed all ISO 9001 requirements. Classification: This should not be a major or minor non-conformity, because supplier and customer agree on packaging procedure. Clauses: 8.2.1, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 8.2.2, 8.3, 8.5.2, 8.5.3
Show parent | Reply
Count of Likes: 0

by R.P.S.L. Rathnaweera - Friday, September 23, 2011, 08:43 AM
My understanding of the Internal Quality Audit is not find fault process but also not room for any deviation from "Procedure / Approved policy and or standard" would be tolerated. However auditor must listen to the aditee as well as previous records as customer complaints etc., and also I have understood it was not worthy check each and every items but need check sample basis as per given international and or national standard and or any product specific standard if available.
Show parent | Reply

by Rosio Martinez - Friday, September 23, 2011, 09:50 AM
Its obvious that all suppliers that release any material for processing must have o an inspection prior to release these components to prevent any problems and to keep records of reports or any type of certification that needs to be included. In this scenario all documents were in place and were working out perfectly fine for them for years. This calls for improvement on inspection process and to establish a consistent procedure for these components. There for this a non conformance
Show parent | Reply
Count of Likes: 0
1/31/13

by Edward Stanulevich - Friday, September 30, 2011, 01:59 PM
I think the auditors are correct within the smaller scope of the audit. In the larger scope additional inspection would be superfluous at best, wasteful at worst. Given the suppliers reputation for quality, compliance, and error acceptance; adding another layer to the overall inspection process would only increase cost through the addition of unnecessary man-hours and delayed receipt of the paper. Inspecting 40,000 sheets of paper individually would certainly prove difficult. Unless there are customer complaints about the quality of the paper sold to them, I dont see how a complete inspection of the product would increase quality or be of any additional service to the customer. In this case the non-conformance is justified. Any change in quality from the supplier as captured by incoming inspection or any increase in customer complaints would warrant a stricter enforcement of inbound inspection until the requisite corrective actions were taken.
Show parent | Reply
Count of Likes: 0

by Deebha Vasanthakumar - Friday, October 28, 2011, 09:20 AM
Hi, Yes, the auditing team is Right. Because as per IS 2589 for 40,000 sheets minimum 200 sheets should be inspected randomly by the incoming inspectors. The acceptance and rejection is purely depends on AQL. If the Customer is accepting the sheets means good but we have to maintain our Quality as per our company Standard. According to me "Quality should be In- built". If we concentrate in our Incoming products and inprocess then we will surely get the final product also a Quality product. Thanks & Regards, Deebha
Show parent | Reply

by JABULANI DUBE - Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 09:22 AM
in coming inspections are not of quality as other companies who are doing these inspection you cant see how effective are they but because of that are being certified we think they are doing good things. how best can i prove that the test is not of standard as they use their xrays and other instruments
Show parent | Reply

by JABULANI DUBE - Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 09:27 AM
on calibration how can you prove that the test was good. some times they have used a faulty machine or that has developed faulty in the process, does the organization allowed to train their internal inspectors for re testing or re inspection to prove the accuracy.
Show parent | Reply

by Everett Barksdale-Bey - Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 02:09 PM
I fail to see how the auditors came to the conclusion that there is a major non-conformity.The process that has been established well tested and functioning to the highest degree. A process that seems to be cost effective,and for the past 12 years have been working quite effective. A non-conformity should be evidence based,there maybe some concern, but I fail to see the evidence based on what was stated here.
Show parent | Reply
www.qualitygurus.com/courses/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=2287
12/18
1/31/13

by Ahsan Saleem - Monday, January 2, 2012, 04:50 AM
Yes i am not understanding the reason of NC because already its been tested over the years that all is going well and have no any concern than auditor should not raise NC
Show parent | Reply

by Peter Allwright - Thursday, December 29, 2011, 05:33 AM
Dear Michelle, In your situation I believe that its imperative to conduct an inspection of the sheets when they are delivered to ensure that the sheets meet the defined specifications. This should entail sampling the sheets to ensure that they meet the technical specifications before being cleared as meeting standards. The problem is often encountered that the sheets would be delivered that do not conform to specifications leading to the suspension of the production line. The suspension of the production line is much more costly in time and delays that performing incoming quality control (via sampling) of the product to ensure that the sheets meet specifications. I have encountered situations where incoming quality control is not performing with the result that significant wasted costs are encountered from the stoppage of the production line and the resultant delays that impact the customer. This leads to situations where products need to be expedited, which cost more, to meet customer expectations.
Show parent | Reply

by Leonardo Lu - Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 05:12 AM
I agree with Hrant. In this case, at least assessment on the impact of defects should be implemented in follow-up process. Though in this case, partially due to the business scope and nature it might be a minor NCR, you have to aware that adequate inspection process is of great importance. Although it lasts decades of years without any customer dissatisfactions and complains, well-constructed QMS has to be put into effect. FMEA is practical to assist in calculating the level of risk priority. Then, correspondingly adequate preventive action and corrective action program of incoming inspection has to be established to eliminate any possibilities impacting customer satisfaction. To sum up, organization has to do this to ensure delighted customer.
Show parent | Reply
Count of Likes: 0

by Joe Schmucker - Monday, January 16, 2012, 10:03 AM
I would not say this is a major non-conformance. As long as your organization has a defined procedure in place for incoming inspection and it is being followed, then there should be no problem, especially if their have been no Customer complaints. Management will have to decide if the procedure written is sufficient or to be rewritten to satisfy the Customer.
Show parent | Reply

by sarah modupe atundaolu - Thursday, January 19, 2012, 02:53 AM
i disagree .if the inspector feel the work is enormous they would have sought for more hands.but since the customers are satisfied its okay
Show parent | Reply

by Brian Jones - Tuesday, January 24, 2012, 04:53 AM
13/18
1/31/13
I have read your posting and was able to quickly identify some of the problems with the company and their supplier. They both are majorly non-conformance in accordance with the ISO 9001. When performing an incoming inspection, it isi not a requirement to inspect every single product that come through your doors. You must be able to determine whether the received product is good, which should be done by your purchasing department. Your purchasing department should occasionly audit incoming product coming from suppliers. This allow them to set up certain processing controls which force suppliers to provide the company with quality products and services. Internal audit carried out of the purchasing process (7.4) identified that there was a defined process in place for purchasing materials that was being followed accurately. (ISO9001, 7.4) Active purchasing staff auditor should know how to establish these criteria,if done correctly, they will establish compatible inspections and test criteria in order for the product to be accepted into the facility. Active purchasing staff auditor will not opt out of during a premium product inspect because of a company and supplier good pass relationship of having a trouble-free provision of product, but treat their inspection like it is the first day doing business with the supplier. This will only bring about a good product performance record and allows the supplier to be happy and wanting feed-back from the company to improve their product.
Show parent | Reply

by mahendra narine - Thursday, March 1, 2012, 06:37 PM
the audit was done in asufficent way however the right process were carried out so that all the information were obtain properly ..
Show parent | Reply
Count of Likes: 0

by DHARSHA SREENIVAS KRISHNAN - Tuesday, March 20, 2012, 02:40 AM
I find that the warehouse staff was right as it is impossible to check each individual sheet,mainly when there is a shortage of man power to do the same.The best way to convince the auditors is to show them the zero customer complaint received out of it and to collect the customer feedback every month so that no external auditors can point on you.
Show parent | Reply

by John Carroll - Tuesday, May 29, 2012, 01:59 PM
This should not be a major non-conformance. The management team had selected a preferred supplierthrough an evaluation to the suppliers capabilities and quality system, asverified in the internal audit of the purchasing process. As has long as Management has documentation: thereceiving process procedure, corrective and preventative actions of any rejectsfrom the supplier and conducted regular management review of same. Any additional inspection will only lead tocustomer dissatisfaction as the cost to the customer will increase due toincreases in labor costs to preform incoming inspection. The audit team should concede that the increasean increase in incoming inspection is not a value added process, given thesuppliers proven track record.
Show parent | Reply

by khadija Mohammed - Tuesday, June 5, 2012, 01:10 AM
Inspection procedure should be built in the organization. Inspection should be done at least to specific percentage of products to guarantee the satisfaction of customers. I agree this is a major non-conforming, but because the company has specific treatment with the customers, customers feel comfortable with any problems.
Show parent | Reply

by Renee Barley - Tuesday, June 5, 2012, 08:50 AM
If you are not receiving any customer complaints and your warehouse staff is carrying out an effective inspection for the type of product you have, you should be fine. Always try to look for a trend in any non-conformance or discrepancy. When you see a trend, it is time to issue a NC.
Show parent | Reply
14/18
1/31/13

by Anna Liza Dela Cruz - Friday, June 8, 2012, 05:58 AM
For me, your company's incoming inspection was enough based on the 12 years of trouble free provision of products from your supplier. If there's customer satisfaction and no complaints, it could mean that your procedure was adequate. It would be impossible to inspect every single thing. Random checks would be ok. What is important is to take samples from each batch. Normally, those on the same batch have the same quality. But since the auditor raised this issue, just treat this as an opportunity for improvement. Think of the way on how to improve your sampling method as a preventive action. Anyway, there's always this saying that " prevention is better than cure."
Show parent | Reply

by jenny bello - Tuesday, June 12, 2012, 08:18 AM
I agree with the auditors when they noticed non-conformity to quality processes. Even if it will be impossible to inspect each individual sheet, what is necessary is to develop a process that will satisfy Clause 7.4.3. In my opinion, one way to address the non-conformity is to make random checking at defined intervals of time as an additional process. When the issue is quality, it is better to take positive action (improving processes) than not to take action at all.
Show parent | Reply

by Bob Perkins - Wednesday, June 13, 2012, 02:11 PM
If you a proceedure and you are following -- to the letter and also have spc data to back it up this should not be a non conformance. Data and following proceedures should be what the audit team is looking at not re- inventing the wheel.
Show parent | Reply

by Gilbert Pacariem - Wednesday, July 25, 2012, 02:42 AM
I think that the inspection is ok. There has been no customer complaints or rejects for the past 12 years. It is therefore sufficient. However, inspection procedure must be reflected in their quality plan or inspection procedures.
Show parent | Reply

by Monchito V. Adecer - Sunday, August 5, 2012, 10:36 PM
I believe that implementation of any international standard, and including it to the company's system should be NOT a reason that the company will incur very big cost of production just for the achievement of quality product. If this is so, however highest quality product anybody has, but due to the cost, the business will fail, as nobody will buy the products. In the case above, I believe that producing the raw material has already a built-in quality in process checks, and this should be the case to ensure quality products. From the information above, the customer has no concern whatsoever. This should be the line of defense of the system owner, and auditing the supplier in their premises to validate this should also be done from time to time.
Show parent | Reply

by Fizza Momna - Saturday, September 15, 2012, 01:11 AM
you have described very well, if end user is satisfied we need not to perform a 100% examination of receiving goods. Standard never focus on 100% inspection, if sorting of goods is not required. you can go with work instructions as process is performed.
Show parent | Reply
15/18
1/31/13

by MOHAMMAD IQBAL - Tuesday, September 18, 2012, 05:22 AM
NCR issued as inspection was limited .Auditor providing opportunity for improvement in inspection by giving NCR.
Show parent | Reply

by Drita Rukaj - Thursday, September 20, 2012, 07:25 AM
I can start analysis from the end of the case study. If the procedure is set like it is mentioned in the case, the inspection actions are performed according to the procedure also, then there is nothing to be considered problematic. The auditor can suggest the procedure change; it is the responsibility of the company to accept or not. Some times in business relationships there is confidentiality which is at the same value of the standards. The priority in quality management pertains to standards so the improvement should be considered from the auditors
Show parent | Reply

by Cindy John - Thursday, September 20, 2012, 03:16 PM
I believe that some auditors do too much nit picking. Incoming inspection for each sheet of paper, sound a little much. Will that paper being a slight shade off cause a real problem? Why don't they do monthly sample checks with the paper supplier so they keep track of the lots of paper being received? We have powder coating in our plant and we constently get samples in to compare so that we don't have any shade issues.
Show parent | Reply

by Oyaifo Kashetu - Tuesday, October 16, 2012, 02:52 AM
No,they are not correct.In auditing,quality is described as a degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfill his requirement.If this is to be followed all products are to be deliver in the right quality as stipulated in the specification.The inspection team or the warehouse team should be encourage to follow the specification base on customer requirement.Quality control and Quality assurance are to be strengthened to make sure they are carrying out their job effectively.Management should also look at the root cause and find a permanent solution to it.Thanks
Show parent | Reply

by Nomthandazo Gloria Ndaba - Wednesday, October 17, 2012, 11:51 AM
The audit team is incorrect , to issue a major non conformance in that , the is an inspection program that is in place , there is also a history of a supplier with good quality repution , for the past 12 years is its recorded that there has been no quality issues , the suppplier is certified with iso 9001 :2008 in addtion to this regular annual audits take place at supplier premisies . the audit team could have issued an opportunity for improvement if they felt that the sample size was too small in relation to be batch quantity recevied . Audit team do not have right to impose their own views , ie , inspection not enough : if measured against what stanndard ? what is percived as not enough to them could be enough to their client based on the risk assesment and history thereof . By Nomthandazo Ndaba
Show parent | Reply
Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection by nomthandazo ndaba

by Nomthandazo Gloria Ndaba - Wednesday, October 17, 2012, 11:58 AM
The audit team is incorrect to issue a major non conformance in that , in this case there is an inspection plan and there is compliance with the inspection plan , in addition to this there is also a history of a supplier with good quality repution , for the past 12 years is its recorded that there has been no quality issues , the suppplier is certified with iso 9001 :2008 in addtion to this regular annual audits take place at supplier premisies . the audit team could have issued an opportunity for improvement if they felt that the sample size was too small in relation to be batch quantity recevied . Audit team do not have right to impose their own views , ie , inspection not enough : if measured against what stanndard ? what is percived as not enough to them could be enough to their client based on the risk assesment
1/31/13
and history thereof . By Nomthandazo Ndaba

Show parent | Reply

by dhanasekaran kuppusamy - Friday, November 23, 2012, 08:11 AM
Incoming material inspection is very important,need to ensure that correct material with required mechanical, chemical properties are received with colour as mentioned in purchase order. Since quantity involved is very high a suitable system shall be evolved to arrange sheets in carton with spacers to verify colour and quantity from out side, quality person shall verify correctness and sign packing slips with unique idenfication provided for each carton. At client side Incoming material inspector to carry out random inspection of boxes for quantity and colour on receiving.This arrangement will help stores person to segregate items and count total. Effectiveness of this system need to be audited for adherence and compliance to avoid customer complaints.
Show parent | Reply

by Jennifer Van Horn - Friday, November 30, 2012, 04:11 PM
No. To me, this is not a major nonconformance. The written programs are being followed, there has been no evidence or history of non-conforming products and has been deemed acceptable to the supplier. In my opinion, this should have been an opportunity, with possibly re-evaluating the receiving process to determine what other practices can be performed to readily identify non-conformances.
Show parent | Reply

by Olubukola Olatoye - Saturday, December 15, 2012, 04:50 AM
Yes, a documented procedure is required and must be officially established, instead of just a few error checks, as is being done.
Show parent | Reply

by Kyaw Lin Htoo - Wednesday, January 16, 2013, 10:45 AM
Dear Sir, My opinions as followedTo be observed the customer feedback and clarified what the impacts. The auditor should raise the major non-conformity products (clause 7.4.3) and the supplier needs to close the issued with corrective and preventative action. The supplier must investigates the process of the products and to be implemented the inspection standard with the acceptance tolerance. The supplier who is registered ISO9001 and ISO14001 must follow the requirements of ISO as like (must follow what u said).
Show parent | Reply
Count of Likes: 0
17/18
1/31/13
100% Free Accounting

WaveApps.com Perfect for Small Businesses. Get Wave Accounting Now!
Quality Handbook | Management Gurus |||| Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
18/18

FJXFGJXFH

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

FJXFGJXFH

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1/31/13

Internal Auditor: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

100% Free Accounting

Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Internal Auditor: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Internal Auditor: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Internal Auditor: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Internal Auditor: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Internal Auditor: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Internal Auditor: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection- Requirement

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Internal Auditor: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Internal Auditor: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Internal Auditor: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Internal Auditor: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection

Count of Likes: 0 Re: Case Study: Incoming Inspection