PECB ISO-9001-Lead-Auditor Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Based on the scenario provided, there is evidence of nonconformity with the requirements defined in:

C. Clause 7.5.1 Documented information - General: The scenario indicates that there is no formal process for informing users about updates to the SWIFT database, which suggests a lack of control over documented information. This could lead to users being unaware of important changes and not using the latest version of the software, which is required by the quality management system1.

E. Clause 7.5.3 Control of documented information: The Operations Director’s approach to updating the SWIFT database and the lack of communication to users about these updates indicate that the documented information is not adequately controlled. Allowing users to revert to earlier versions of the software at their discretion further suggests that the organization does not have a proper mechanism in place to ensure the integrity and suitability of documented information2.

These clauses are part of the ISO 9001:2015 standard, which requires organizations to have a systematic approach to controlling and managing documented information as part of their quality management system. The scenario described shows a casual approach to managing critical software updates, which could affect the organization’s ability to consistently meet customer and regulatory requirements.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Clause 5.1.1 of ISO 9001:2015 – Leadership and Commitment – specifically mandates that top management must take accountability for the effectiveness of the QMS. They are also responsible for ensuring:

Integration of the QMS into business processes (5.1.1 c)

Promotion of customer focus and continual improvement (5.1.1 d, i)

Availability of necessary resources (5.1.1 e)

That the QMS achieves its intended results (5.1.1 g)

Let’s analyze the selected options:

✅ A. Top management is not accountable for the effectiveness of the QMS.

This directly violates clause 5.1.1 a, which explicitly requires top management to take accountability for the effectiveness of the QMS. Delegating this to a middle-level Quality Manager, as described in the scenario, constitutes a nonconformity.

✅ F. The Quality Manager does not have access to the resources needed for the QMS.

According to clause 5.1.1 e, top management must ensure the availability of required resources for maintaining and improving the QMS. If the Quality Manager is resource-constrained, it indicates top management has failed to meet this requirement.

Now, why the other options are incorrect in terms of direct clause 5.1.1 nonconformity:

❌ B. Avoiding giving improvement actions to the Chief Executive – While this may reflect poor communication, it is not, by itself, a clear breach of 5.1.1 unless linked directly to top management’s lack of accountability or commitment.

❌ C. Chief Executive never attending meetings – ISO 9001 does not require physical attendance of the Chief Executive at management reviews. What matters is whether top management is fulfilling their roles, not how.

❌ D. Completing only half of improvement actions – This indicates performance issues but does not necessarily indicate top management’s lack of accountability, unless they failed to monitor progress entirely.

❌ E. Reporting to one designated senior manager – This is not inherently nonconforming unless that senior manager does not fulfill top management’s responsibilities under 5.1.1.

Relevant ISO 9001:2015 Reference:

Clause 5.1.1 a, e, g, h:

"Top management shall demonstrate leadership and commitment with respect to the quality management system by:

a) taking accountability for the effectiveness of the quality management system;

e) ensuring that the resources needed for the quality management system are available..."

According to ISO 9001:2015, clause 9.2.2.e, the organization is required to retain documented information as evidence of the implementation of the audit programme and the audit results. This includes the records of the nonconformities identified during the internal audits and the corrective actions taken to address them. The organization is also required to verify the effectiveness of the corrective actions, as per clause 10.2.2.

Therefore, in the scenario given, the Quality Manager’s decision to automatically close any nonconformance over 3 years old without obtaining any confirmation from the relevant departments or verifying the effectiveness of the corrective actions is a clear violation of the requirements of clause 9.2.2.e. This indicates a lack of control and follow-up of the internal audit process, as well as a potential risk of recurrence or occurrence of the nonconformities in other areas. This also undermines the credibility and value of the internal audit programme, as well as the risk-based approach claimed by the Quality Manager.

Hence, the best course of action to take is D, to raise a nonconformance report against clause 9.2.2.e of ISO 9001, and to communicate the audit findings to the relevant management. The other options are either insufficient or irrelevant to address the issue, as they do not directly relate to the noncompliance with clause 9.2.2.e.