In the history of dumb auditor findings, this has to be the dumbest.
Over at the Oxebridge ISO 9001 LinkedIn Group, member Steve Hill revealed that one of his ISO 9001 consultants was hit with a whopper of a stupid nonconformity:
[Nonconformity] raised as the clients are excluding design and development as they do not design or develop products but they do design and develop the QMS and its processes.
Sweet Jesus, that’s a whole new level of stupid. If I put that in THE AUDITOR comic strip, you’d never believe it actually happened.
So, according to this window-licker auditor, nobody anywhere can ever exclude 8.3 because he says it’s relevant to the design of the QMS itself. In order to reach this conclusion, our intrepid, drooling pencil-eater has to undergo the following mental gymnastics:
First, he’s gotta just ignore the entire history of ISO 9001, going back to 1987. You see, ISO understood that you could exclude design even if you had a QMS, and they actually published two whole standards — ISO 9002 and ISO 9003 –allowing companies to do just that.
Next, he must entirely ignore the frigging title of the clause: 8.3 Design and Development of Products and Services. You see, it’s right there in the name: this isn’t about designing your QMS, it’s about designing the stuff you sell. And nobody sells their own QMS as a product or service.
Next (oh, there’s more), this shidiot then has to realize that if ISO meant for the design of the QMS itself to be a thing, it would have included it in the QMS “Planning” clauses (per PDCA) of 4 through 7. In fact, it would likely literally go into Clause 6.0 Planning. Clause 8 — which is where 8.3 resides, something this moron didn’t realize — is about “Operation” and is the “Do” part of PDCA. By the time you get to clause 8, ISO assumes the QMS is already designed, and now you’re actually using it. (Clauses 9 and 10 are then “Check” and “Act”, respectively.)
Steve rightfully questions whether “the CB read his report before sending it as surely they would’ve corrected it.” The short answer is, of course not. The CBs have one job, and they can’t be bothered to actually do it. So they let auditors like this neolithic numbnut run around wild, without anyone checking their work.
And, oh my God, am I hoping this auditor is reading this right now. Because, yeah, this is about you. You’re so stupid, you’re a danger to yourself and others. Here’s my advice, Mr. Auditor: find another line of work more suited to your skillset. Maybe spinning signs outside Liberty Insurance or cleaning shoes at a bowling alley. But you need to quit auditing entirely, and right now, because at this rate you are going to kill yourself the next time you try to put on a pair of safety glasses. I also suggest you lock yourself in a room and chain yourself to the bedpost like Lon Chaney Jr. in The Wolfman, because — yeah — you can’t fix stupid, but you can sure help protect the rest of us from it.
Great auditor training, Exemplar and IRCA! I guess the check cleared, so you just printed this guy his Lead Auditor cert. I’m frankly surprised he didn’t papercut his eyelids with it.
Christopher Paris is the founder and VP Operations of Oxebridge. He has over 30 years’ experience implementing ISO 9001 and AS9100 systems, and helps establish certification and accreditation bodies with the ISO 17000 series. He is a vocal advocate for the development and use of standards from the point of view of actual users. He is the writer and artist of THE AUDITOR comic strip, and is currently writing the DR. CUBA pulp novel series. Visit www.drcuba.world
Chris: The Design confusion I observed often was the injection molding companies that produced products based on the customer’s design. Many auditors would insist the organization follow Design requirements for the molds that produced the plastic parts.
The CBs I worked with would allow exclusion of design- except if the organization was involved in designing and selling the mold that produced the part.
Be interested in your take and readers on this issue. regards
Milt
I’ve had this same scenario come up a few times, most recently with a CB that claimed a company that designed test fixtures for rockets had to include them in their design controls, even though the fixtures didn’t fly, nor were they sold. Whenever I encounter this problem, I have to remind the CB or client that 8.3 only applies to things they design for SALE, and not everything else they may design. Most CBs understand this, but you get the occasional rogue auditor who is clueless. Clients need to push back on bad auditors.
Wondering what Steve Hill’s reaction to the “NC” was in the closing meeting, how hard he pushed back and if he could convince the auditor using the same logic that Chris presented. If no relenting, “there’s the door, please use it, this will be the last time you’re auditing us”.
They live among us 😩