Pearson ISO-9001-Lead-Auditor New Attempt

The auditor could raise the following nonconformities to ISO 9001 based on the scenario:

•Option A: 10.3 - The organisation did not continuously improve. Reject rates were unchanged. This option is correct because ISO 9001:2015 clause 10.3 requires the organization to improve the suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the quality management system. The organization did not demonstrate any improvement in reducing the reject rate of the finished product, which was a stated objective of top management. The corrective action taken by the organization was not effective in addressing the root cause of the problem and preventing its recurrence.

•Option B: 7.1.4 - The factory environment is not suitably maintained to prevent dirty products. This option is correct because ISO 9001:2015 clause 7.1.4 requires the organization to determine, provide and maintain the environment necessary for the operation of its processes and to achieve conformity of products and services. The organization did not ensure that the factory floor was clean and dry, which affected the quality of the products and increased the risk of nonconformity.

•Option C: 7.1.1 - The organization failed to provide the required resources to prevent nonconforming products. This option is correct because ISO 9001:2015 clause 7.1.1 requires the organization to determine and provide the resources needed for the establishment, implementation, maintenance and continual improvement of the quality management system. The organization did not provide adequate collection baskets for the products ejecting from the moulding machines, which resulted in products falling onto the factory floor and becoming nonconforming.

The following options are not correct:

•Option D: 9.2.2 - Report IA202 contained a poorly worded nonconformity (NC 3). This option is not correct because ISO 9001:2015 clause 9.2.2 does not specify the requirements for the wording of nonconformities in internal audit reports. The nonconformity (NC 3) stated by the internal auditor was clear and relevant to the audit criteria and audit evidence. The issue is not with the report, but with the corrective action taken by the organization.

•Option E: 8.6 - Dirty products were released to the customer. This option is not correct because ISO 9001:2015 clause 8.6 requires the organization to implement planned arrangements, at appropriate stages, to verify that the product and service requirements have been met. The scenario does not indicate that the dirty products were released to the customer, but that they were recalled and repaired then returned to the customers. The issue is not with the release, but with the production process and the environment.

•Option F: 7.3 - Staff were not aware that products were falling onto the factory floor. This option is not correct because ISO 9001:2015 clause 7.3 requires the organization to ensure that the persons doing work under its control are aware of the quality policy, relevant quality objectives, their contribution to the effectiveness of the quality management system, and the implications of not conforming with the quality management system requirements. The scenario does not indicate that the staff were not aware of these aspects, but that the management did not provide adequate resources and environment for the staff to perform their work. The issue is not with the awareness, but with the management responsibility and resource provision.

•Option G: 10.2.1 - Conduct of an investigation was not sufficient to understand the cause of the nonconformity. This option is not correct because ISO 9001:2015 clause 10.2.1 requires the organization to react to the nonconformity and, as applicable, take action to control and correct it and deal with the consequences. The scenario indicates that the Quality Manager conducted an investigation into the reject rates and identified the cause of the nonconformity. The issue is not with the investigation, but with the corrective action taken by the management.

•Option H: 8.5.1 - Production operations were not properly controlled to avoid reject products. This option is not correct because ISO 9001:2015 clause 8.5.1 requires the organization to implement production and service provision under controlled conditions. The scenario indicates that the production operations were controlled by the moulding machines, which ejected the products into the collection baskets. The issue is not with the production operations, but with the size of the collection baskets and the condition of the factory floor.

References:

•ISO 9001:2015 Quality management systems - Requirements

•ISO 9001 Lead Auditor Course Material, Module 6: Reporting Audit Findings, Slide 14: Writing Nonconformity Statements

•ISO 9001 Lead Auditor Training Course - IRCA Certified, Section 6.2: Reporting Audit Findings

•Lead Auditor Exam Preparation Guide (EPG) Template - PECB, Section 3.2: Exam Content Outline, Subsection 3.2.1: Section 1 - Audit Fundamentals, Subsection 3.2.2: Section 2 - Audit Principles, Subsection 3.2.3: Section 3 - Audit Process, Subsection 3.2.4: Section 4 - Audit Competencies

A first-party audit is an internal audit conducted by auditors who are employed by the organization being audited but who have no vested interest in the audit results of the area being audited1. The purpose of a first-party audit is to assess the conformity of the organization’s quality management system to the requirements of ISO 9001 and to identify opportunities for improvement2. Therefore, the two auditors who would not participate in a first-party audit are:

•A. An auditor employed by an external consultancy organization: This auditor is not employed by the organization being audited, and therefore does not qualify as a first-party auditor. This auditor may be hired to conduct a second-party audit (if the external consultancy organization is a customer or supplier of the organization being audited) or a third-party audit (if the external consultancy organization is a certification body or registrar).

•F. An auditor from a customer: This auditor is not employed by the organization being audited, and therefore does not qualify as a first-party auditor. This auditor may be hired to conduct a second-party audit, as a customer is an interested party that has specific requirements for the organization being audited.

The other options are not correct, as they could participate in a first-party audit, as long as they are employed by the organization being audited and have no vested interest in the audit results of the area being audited:

•B. An auditor from an interested party: This auditor could be a first-party auditor, as long as the interested party is within the organization being audited. For example, an auditor from the finance department could audit the production department, as long as they are not involved in the production process or affected by its outcomes.

•C. An auditor trained in-house: This auditor could be a first-party auditor, as long as they are employed by the organization being audited and have no vested interest in the audit results of the area being audited. The source of the auditor’s training is not relevant for determining the type of audit, as long as the auditor is competent and qualified to perform the audit.

•D. An auditor trained in the IRCA scheme: This auditor could be a first-party auditor, as long as they are employed by the organization being audited and have no vested interest in the audit results of the area being audited. The IRCA scheme is a professional certification scheme for auditors of management systems, which provides recognition of the auditor’s competence and credibility3. However, being trained in the IRCA scheme does not determine the type of audit, as long as the auditor is competent and qualified to perform the audit.

•E. An auditor certified by IRCA: This auditor could be a first-party auditor, as long as they are employed by the organization being audited and have no vested interest in the audit results of the area being audited. Being certified by IRCA means that the auditor has met the requirements of the IRCA scheme and has demonstrated their competence and credibility as an auditor of management systems3. However, being certified by IRCA does not determine the type of audit, as long as the auditor is competent and qualified to perform the audit.

References: First Party Audits: The 5 Steps to Success - Sync Resource Inc, ISO 9001 Auditing Practices Group, IRCA - International Register of Certificated Auditors

Based on the scenario and the concept of an ‘audit trail’ within the context of ISO 9001, the three statements that apply would likely be:

A. Decisions on improvement action timescales not involving departmental managers. This indicates a lack of involvement and communication with those responsible for implementing the improvements, which is a key part of an effective audit trail1.

B. Evaluation of the results of the improvement action not always documented by the Quality Manager. Proper documentation is essential for an audit trail, as it provides evidence that actions have been evaluated and are effective1.

C. Limited knowledge of the content of Quality Improvement Requests by departmental staff. An audit trail should ensure that all relevant parties are aware of and understand the actions being taken, which is not the case here1.

These points suggest issues with the communication, documentation, and involvement of relevant personnel in the quality management system processes, which are crucial for maintaining an effective audit trail and, by extension, a robust quality management system.

Here is the correct matching of the activities with the responsible parties in the context of a second-party audit:

Define the audit scope: Customer

Develop the audit plan: Audit team leader

Respond to the audit findings: External provider

Conduct the audit: Audit team

This reflects the typical division of responsibilities in a second-party audit, where the customer (the party commissioning the audit) sets the scope, the audit team leader manages the planning, the external provider responds to findings, and the audit team carries out the audit.