IATF NC Interaction of process diagram - Missing contingency plan

Hello, we just had our IATF audit and one of the NCs we were issued was for not having the Contingency plan call out on the interaction of the process diagram. I have been trying to understand why is the Contingency plan supposed to be part of the interaction of the process. Do you have any feedback/notes on this?

NC from auditor and objective evidence
Requirement: 4.4.1 The organization shall ... determine the processes needed for the quality management system and their application throughout the
organization
Statement of nonconforming:
The determination of the processes necessary for the quality management system and their application throughout the organization is not fully
effective.
Objective evidence: The contingency plan is not included in the “Interaction of process flow chart”

Good afternoon. I can see why you are struggling to find the requirement. It is because that isn't a requirement from ISO or IATF. That is what the auditor would like to see. I would like to see lots of things, doesn't mean any are required by the standard.

Do you have a system to demonstrate your processes and their interactions? Do you have a contingency plan? If the answer to those questions is yes, then where is the "shall" being violated.

We need way less of this kind of auditor interpretation treated like gospel. The standard provides some degree of freedom to allow different companies different ways to allow the standard to add value. All the "you have these things, but I want to see it here" findings do absolutely nothing of any value.

Thank you Mike for your comments. Yes, we have an interaction of process diagrams, we have turtle diagrams, and a contingency plan in place as well. Yes, I also think is more something she wants instead of a real "Requirement".

DJulian said:

Thank you Mike for your comments. Yes, we have an interaction of process diagrams, we have turtle diagrams, and a contingency plan in place as well. Yes, I also think is more something she wants instead of a real "Requirement".

Click to expand...

if you are meeting the requirements, it doesn’t matter what the auditor wants. This is a huge problem. Maybe they’ve seen it done that way somewhere, and they liked the idea of it. Still not a requirement. The standard says what you need to accomplish, leaving it up to the organization to determine the best way to do so.

The question is whether it is a process
The definition of process in ISO9000 which is accepted by IATF is
3.4.1
process
set of interrelated or interacting activities that use inputs to deliver an intended result

By this definition the contingency plan is a control for other process
IATF states
6.1.2.3 Contingency plans
The organization shall:
identify and evaluate internal and external risks to all manufacturing processes and
infrastructure equipment essential to maintain production output and to ensure that
customer requirements are met;

This shows it is a control for other processes

Please feel free to use your CBs appeals process as you will not find a root cause!

NB the standard also states
The organization shall ... determine the processes needed for the quality management system

The auditor cannot tell you what to determine if your system works

Everything that @Mikey324 said.

Be well.

John C. Abnet said:

Everything that @Mikey324 said.
Be well.

Click to expand...

Yeah, stuff like this wastes everyone’s time. These types of findings probably play into why we see less companies going for certification lately. Better uses of your time than concocting a root cause and countermeasure for a nonexistent issue.

Mikey324 said:

Yeah, stuff like this wastes everyone’s time. These types of findings probably play into why we see less companies going for certification lately. Better uses of your time than concocting a root cause and countermeasure for a nonexistent issue.

Click to expand...

Agreed, although @DJulian certainly asks a valid question.

I also (I'm sure you/others do as well) realize that it's difficult to see and fully understand the situation without being directly involved with the audit/auditor. For these reasons, some benefit of doubt should be afforded the auditor.
However, based on what we do understand, I agree with your assumption that the AUDITOR is wasting @DJulian 's time by raising what seems to be a non-existent "issue".

Be well.

John C. Abnet said:

Agreed, although @DJulian certainly asks a valid question.

I also (I'm sure you/others do as well) realize that it's difficult to see and fully understand the situation without being directly involved with the audit/auditor. For these reasons, some benefit of doubt should be afforded the auditor.
However, based on what we do understand, I agree with your assumption that the AUDITOR is wasting @DJulian 's time by raising what seems to be a non-existent "issue".

Be well.

Click to expand...

The only reason I say this as strongly as I have is based on the OP's NC statement from the auditor. If this truly is the finding, word for word, the auditor is missing a critical point. The objective evidence was stated as "the contingency plan is not included in the “Interaction of process flow chart”. And nothing in the standard requires it to be. In my opinion, the reviewers at the CB should push back on this one. If not, I would question what the reviewers know about the requirements.

DJulian said:

Hello, we just had our IATF audit and one of the NCs we were issued was for not having the Contingency plan call out on the interaction of the process diagram. I have been trying to understand why is the Contingency plan supposed to be part of the interaction of the process. Do you have any feedback/notes on this?

NC from auditor and objective evidence
Requirement: 4.4.1 The organization shall ... determine the processes needed for the quality management system and their application throughout the
organization
Statement of nonconforming:
The determination of the processes necessary for the quality management system and their application throughout the organization is not fully
effective.
Objective evidence: The contingency plan is not included in the “Interaction of process flow chart”

Click to expand...

A plan is a plan. It may point to process which are to be deployed, but it isn’t a process in and of itself. I despair of supposedly competent CB auditors who clearly have no clue about the subject matter of their audits. Reject the nc to the CB management.