Need for Full Corrective Action or Preventive Action or Neither
Risk Based Thinking in Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs)
Not all risks, benefits and non-conforming conditions need full root cause analysis. Some of them will never impact the ability of the organization or the people in it to do their job, or their health, welfare and safety.
Those that do, must be handled formally. Those that do not can be treated differently, but consistent with good QMS practice.
Learn the difference. Gain objective tools to make the determination and defend that decision to any regulatory or accreditation body.
- The conditions that must be considered
- Non conformances
- Potential non-conformances (also known as Risks)
- Opportunities for improvement (also known as Benefits)
- Objective decision criteria
- Three questions
- Six steps
- The cycle of review
Ned is the current Training Manager of International Accreditation Service Inc (IAS), a signatory to both the ILAC and IAF Conventions. Ned started in laboratory quality systems in 1992 and has been involved in accreditation since 1996, including 10 years as the Quality Manager of an ILAC signatory body.
Ned once served on the ISO/CASCO committees that wrote 17025 and revised it in 2005. He represented ILAC on ISO TC 176, the committee responsible for ISO 9000.
Ned recently retired from the roles of both Lead Evaluator for ILAC and APAC and the trainer for APAC. A world traveller in the service of the UN, Ned spent over 10 years deployed to developing nations to assist in the creation and implementation of conformant accreditation programs. Closer to home, he now mostly restricts his work to representing IAS needs in training and providing advice to IAS trainees on the development and implementation of lab, inspection body and product certification body management systems.
His hobby is flying his Mooney aircraft. His favourite topic is leadership.