How to Effectively Write an Audit Nonconformity Report

When conducting an audit, identifying and documenting nonconformities is crucial. An audit nonconformity report serves as a formal record of instances where a process or activity fails to meet specified requirements. However, writing an effective nonconformity report involves more than just noting down the deviation. It requires a methodical approach to ensure that the findings are clear, actionable, and valuable for continuous improvement. Here’s a step-by-step guide to writing an effective audit nonconformity report.

1. Clearly Identify the Nonconformity

The foundation of an effective audit nonconformity report begins with accurately identifying and articulating the nonconformity. This step is critical, as it sets the tone for the entire corrective action process. A well-defined nonconformity ensures that all stakeholders understand the exact issue that needs to be addressed, which in turn helps in developing targeted and effective corrective actions.

Pinpointing the Requirement

To begin, the auditor must pinpoint the exact requirement that has not been met. This could be a clause from an international standard (such as ISO 9001), an internal procedure, a contractual obligation, or a regulatory requirement. The requirement serves as the benchmark against which the process or product is evaluated. When a nonconformity occurs, it means that there is a gap between the current practice and what is required.

For example, consider the following:

• Standard Requirement: ISO 9001:2015, Clause 8.2.3.1, states, "The organisation shall ensure that products conform to the requirements."
  This clause emphasises the importance of product conformity, meaning that every product released must meet specified requirements. If this requirement is not met, it could lead to nonconforming products reaching customers, which could result in dissatisfaction, returns, or even legal liabilities.

Linking the Nonconformity to the Requirement

Once the requirement is identified, the next step is to describe how the current process or product fails to meet this requirement. This involves a detailed examination of the evidence gathered during the audit. The nonconformity should be described in clear, objective terms that directly link the observed issue to the specific requirement.

For instance:

• Nonconformity: During the audit, it was observed that the final product inspection records for batch #1234 did not include verification of all specified characteristics, particularly the dimensional characteristics required by the product specification document.

In this example, the nonconformity is clearly tied to the requirement in ISO 9001:2015. The failure to verify all specified characteristics during the final inspection directly contravenes the requirement that products must conform to the specified requirements before being released.

Understanding the Context of the Nonconformity

Understanding the context in which the nonconformity occurred is crucial. This involves considering the broader implications of the nonconformity and the environment in which it was identified. Was the issue a result of a systemic failure, such as inadequate training or poor process design? Or was it an isolated incident? Context helps in prioritising the nonconformity and deciding on the urgency and nature of corrective actions.

For example, if the failure to verify all characteristics is due to a lack of proper training among inspection staff, this might suggest a broader issue within the organisation’s training program. Alternatively, if the issue is isolated to a single batch, it might indicate a one-off error rather than a systemic problem.

Best Practices for Identifying Nonconformities

1. Be Specific: Avoid vague language. The more specific you are in identifying the requirement and the nonconformity, the easier it will be to address the issue.
2. Use Clear Language: Write in a clear, concise manner that can be easily understood by all stakeholders, regardless of their technical background.
3. Avoid Assumptions: Stick to the facts observed during the audit. Avoid making assumptions about the causes of the nonconformity at this stage.
4. Document Thoroughly: Ensure that all relevant details are documented, including the requirement, the observed nonconformity, and any supporting evidence.

2. Describe the Evidence

Once a nonconformity is identified, the next critical step is to provide evidence that substantiates the finding. Evidence serves as the backbone of the audit report, offering tangible proof that supports the auditor's conclusions. Without clear, objective, and verifiable evidence, the nonconformity might be challenged or dismissed, making it harder to drive necessary corrective actions.

Why Evidence is Crucial

In the context of an audit, evidence is not just a formality; it is the cornerstone of credibility and accuracy. Well-documented evidence ensures that the findings are grounded in reality, preventing any room for misinterpretation or dispute. This evidence should unequivocally link the nonconformity to a specific requirement, thus establishing a clear cause-and-effect relationship.

For instance, if the nonconformity is related to a failure in the quality management system, the evidence should directly show where the system failed to meet the established standards. This could include data points, observation records, photos, videos, or even testimonies from employees involved in the process. The more concrete and specific the evidence, the stronger the case for implementing corrective actions.

Types of Evidence

• Documentary Evidence: This includes any written or recorded information that substantiates the nonconformity. Examples include inspection records, meeting minutes, process flow diagrams, quality control charts, and emails. For instance, if a batch of products was released without proper inspection, the relevant inspection records (or lack thereof) would serve as key evidence.
• Physical Evidence: This involves tangible items that can be inspected or measured. In a manufacturing setting, physical evidence might include defective products, damaged materials, or uncalibrated tools. For example, if a nonconformity arises due to the use of incorrect raw materials, samples of these materials should be documented as evidence.
• Observational Evidence: This type of evidence comes from direct observations made during the audit. It could involve noting how a process is actually being performed versus how it is supposed to be performed according to documented procedures. Observational evidence can be captured through notes, photographs, or videos. For example, if employees are observed not following safety protocols, a written description of these observations, supported by photos, would be valuable evidence.
• Testimonial Evidence: Sometimes, interviews or statements from employees or stakeholders can provide insight into the root cause of a nonconformity. However, testimonial evidence should be used cautiously and always corroborated with other forms of evidence to avoid biases or inaccuracies.

How to Document Evidence

When documenting evidence, it’s important to be as specific as possible. The description should include:

• Date and Time: When was the evidence collected? This is crucial for establishing a timeline of events.
• Location: Where was the evidence collected? This helps in identifying the specific part of the process or system where the nonconformity occurred.
• Who Collected It: Who observed or collected the evidence? This adds a layer of accountability and traceability.
• What Was Observed or Measured: Provide a detailed description of the facts or data collected. This should be directly related to the nonconformity and should not include any extraneous information.
• Reference to Relevant Standards or Requirements: Always tie the evidence back to the specific requirement or standard that was violated. This strengthens the argument that the observed issue is indeed a nonconformity.

For example:

• Nonconformity: The final inspection process did not include verification of all critical characteristics as required by the product specification.
• Evidence: Inspection records for batch #1234, dated 15th August 2023, shows that dimensional measurements for length and width were not recorded, despite being specified as critical characteristics in the product specification document (Ref: DOC-12345, Clause 4.2.1). This omission was observed during the audit on 20th August 2023 by [Auditor Name].

Verifying Evidence

Before including evidence in the nonconformity report, it must be verified to ensure its accuracy and relevance. Verification involves cross-checking the evidence against other records, standards, or observations. For instance, if the evidence is a missing record, you might verify this by checking the document control system to confirm that the record was indeed supposed to exist. Similarly, if the evidence is an observed behaviour, corroborate it with multiple observations or witness statements to rule out anomalies or one-off incidents.

Challenges in Evidence Collection

In some cases, collecting evidence can be challenging due to incomplete records, lack of access to necessary information, or uncooperative personnel. In such scenarios, the auditor must note these challenges in the report and provide the best possible evidence available. If critical evidence is missing, this itself can be noted as a nonconformity related to record-keeping or process documentation.

3. Avoid Subjective Language

In the world of auditing, the integrity and reliability of the audit process heavily depend on the objectivity of the audit report. Subjectivity, when it creeps into an audit report, can undermine the report's credibility and impact. Therefore, avoiding subjective or judgmental language is not just a best practice—it is a fundamental principle of effective auditing.

Why Objectivity Matters in Audit Reporting

Objectivity in audit reporting is crucial for several reasons:

1. Maintaining Professionalism: Auditors are expected to maintain a high level of professionalism and neutrality. By avoiding subjective language, auditors can present their findings in a manner that reflects their unbiased position, thus preserving the professional tone of the report.
2. Enhancing Clarity: Subjective language can obscure the facts and lead to misinterpretations. When a report is written objectively, it provides a clear and unambiguous account of the findings, making it easier for stakeholders to understand the issues and take appropriate action.
3. Facilitating Corrective Actions: Objective reports help in focusing on the facts rather than on perceived failures of individuals or teams. This focus on the facts allows management to address the root causes of nonconformities, rather than getting sidetracked by emotional or judgmental considerations.
4. Building Trust: Trust is a cornerstone of effective auditing. If stakeholders perceive the audit report as biassed or subjective, it can erode their trust in the audit process. An objective report, on the other hand, fosters confidence that the audit was conducted fairly and that the findings are reliable.

How to Ensure Objectivity in Audit Reports

To maintain objectivity in audit reports, auditors should adhere to the following practices:

• Focus on Facts, Not Opinions: The report should detail what was observed or measured, without adding personal interpretations. For example, instead of saying "The team was careless in completing the records," the report should state, "The records did not include the required measurements." The former statement makes an assumption about the team's behaviour, while the latter simply presents the observed fact.
• Avoid Emotional or Loaded Language: Words like "careless," "negligent," or "inadequate" introduce a judgmental tone that can lead to defensiveness and conflict. Stick to neutral language that describes what happened without assigning blame.
• Be Specific and Precise: Vague statements can be perceived as subjective. Instead, provide specific details about what was found. For instance, instead of saying, "The process was not followed properly," specify what part of the process was not adhered to and how this was verified.
• Use Evidence to Support Statements: Every claim in the report should be backed by concrete evidence. This could include records, data, or direct observations made during the audit. When the evidence is clearly presented, there is less room for subjective interpretation.
• Review for Bias: Before finalising the report, review it for any potential biases. This includes looking for language that might suggest personal opinions or judgments. It may be helpful to have a colleague review the report to identify any inadvertent subjectivity.

Examples of Objective vs. Subjective Language

To further illustrate the importance of objective language, consider the following examples:

• Objective: "The inspection records for batch #1234 did not include measurements for the specified characteristics."
• Subjective: "The inspection team failed to properly document the required measurements."

In the objective statement, the focus is solely on the fact that certain measurements were missing. The subjective statement, however, implies fault on the part of the inspection team, which is an opinion rather than a fact.

• Objective: "The procedure was not followed as outlined in the documented process."
• Subjective: "The team ignored the established procedure."

Again, the objective statement highlights the discrepancy between the actual and expected process without attributing intent or blame, whereas the subjective statement assumes a deliberate disregard for the procedure.

The Importance of Training in Objectivity

Ensuring objectivity in audit reports requires more than just awareness; it demands training. Auditors should be trained in:

• Report Writing Techniques: Training on how to structure reports and choose language that is neutral and fact-based can greatly improve the quality of audit reports.
• Critical Thinking: Auditors should be taught to separate their observations from their interpretations, focusing on what is known rather than what is inferred.
• Understanding Bias: Auditors need to be aware of their own biases and how these can affect their judgement and reporting. Regular reflection and feedback can help in identifying and mitigating bias.

Sources and Further Reading

For more in-depth guidance on maintaining objectivity in audit reports, consider these sources:

• Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA): The IIA provides comprehensive resources on audit standards and best practices, including the importance of objectivity in audit reporting.
• ISO 19011: Guidelines for Auditing Management Systems: This standard provides guidance on the principles of auditing, including the need for objective and impartial audit reporting.
• “The Objectivity of Auditors: A Critique of Recent Developments” by Philip M. J. Reckers: This academic paper explores the importance of objectivity in auditing and how recent trends have influenced audit practices.

4. Link the Nonconformity to Risk

One of the most critical aspects of an audit nonconformity report is the ability to clearly link the identified nonconformity to potential risks. This connection not only underscores the importance of the finding but also helps the organisation understand the broader implications of the issue. A well-documented nonconformity linked to risk highlights the urgency and necessity of corrective actions, ensuring that the organisation mitigates potential negative outcomes effectively.

Understanding Risk in the Context of Nonconformities

Risk is an inherent part of any business operation, and understanding how nonconformities contribute to these risks is vital for effective risk management. When a nonconformity is identified, it often signifies a deviation from established standards or procedures that could compromise the organisation's ability to meet its objectives. These deviations can have far-reaching consequences if not addressed promptly and appropriately.

For instance, consider a manufacturing process where a critical dimension of a product is not consistently measured and documented. While this may seem like a minor oversight, the risk associated with this nonconformity can be significant. The lack of proper documentation can lead to undetected defects, which in turn could result in product recalls, increased warranty claims, loss of customer trust, and potential legal liabilities.

Types of Risks to Consider

When linking a nonconformity to risk, it’s essential to consider various dimensions of risk that the organisation might face. These can include:

• Product Quality Risks: Nonconformities that directly impact the quality of the product or service can lead to defects, rework, and scrap, ultimately affecting the organisation's bottom line. Poor quality products can damage the company's reputation and result in customer dissatisfaction.
• Example: A nonconformity in the calibration process of measuring equipment could lead to inaccurate measurements, compromising the quality of the final product.
• Customer Satisfaction Risks: Nonconformities that affect the delivery of customer expectations can lead to dissatisfaction, complaints, and a loss of business. Ensuring customer satisfaction is crucial for retaining customers and maintaining a competitive edge in the market.
• Example: Failure to meet delivery deadlines due to a nonconformity in the scheduling process could result in customer dissatisfaction and loss of repeat business.
• Regulatory Compliance Risks: In many industries, nonconformities can lead to non-compliance with regulatory requirements, resulting in fines, legal actions, and even shutdowns. Compliance with industry regulations is essential for avoiding legal repercussions and maintaining the organisation's operational licence.
• Example: A non-conformity related to environmental regulations could lead to fines and damage the organisation's reputation as a responsible corporate entity.
• Operational Risks: Nonconformities can also lead to inefficiencies and increased operational costs. These risks can arise from process disruptions, equipment failures, or increased waste due to nonconformities in production processes.
• Example: A nonconformity in maintenance procedures could result in unexpected equipment breakdowns, leading to production delays and increased costs.
• Financial Risks: Nonconformities that lead to increased costs, either through rework, waste, or penalties, can have a direct impact on the organisation’s financial health. Financial risks are often closely linked with other risk types, such as operational and regulatory risks.
• Example: The financial impact of a nonconformity in a critical process could result in significant losses if defective products reach the market, leading to recalls and compensation claims.

Assessing and Prioritising Risks

Once the risks associated with a nonconformity have been identified, it’s important to assess and prioritise them based on their potential impact and likelihood of occurrence. This process often involves a risk assessment matrix, where the severity of the potential impact is plotted against the probability of the risk materialising. High-impact, high-probability risks are typically prioritised for immediate corrective action, while lower-risk issues might be addressed as part of a longer-term improvement plan.

By linking nonconformities to specific risks, the audit report provides a clear rationale for why certain corrective actions are necessary. This approach not only ensures that resources are allocated efficiently but also helps in fostering a culture of continuous improvement within the organisation.

Practical Example: Linking Risk to Nonconformity

Consider the following scenario: During an audit of a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility, it was discovered that batch records were incomplete, specifically missing critical data related to the temperature control of a drug during storage.

Identified Nonconformity: The temperature control logs for batch #5678 were incomplete, lacking data for 12 hours during storage.

Linked Risks:

• Product Quality Risk: Without complete temperature logs, there is no assurance that the drug was stored within the required temperature range, potentially compromising its efficacy.
• Regulatory Compliance Risk: Regulatory agencies require comprehensive documentation for drug storage conditions. Incomplete records could result in non-compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), leading to potential fines or sanctions.
• Customer Satisfaction Risk: If the compromised batch is released, it could lead to ineffective treatment, damaging patient trust and the company's reputation.

In this example, the linkage of the nonconformity to multiple risks highlights the urgency of corrective actions to prevent serious consequences.

Citing Sources on Risk Management

Understanding and managing risks is a fundamental aspect of quality management and audit processes. To delve deeper into this topic, consider the following sources:

• ISO 31000:2018 - Risk Management Guidelines: This standard provides principles and guidelines on managing risks faced by organisations. It is applicable to any organisation, regardless of size, activity, or sector.
• COSO Enterprise Risk Management – Integrating with Strategy and Performance: The COSO framework offers comprehensive guidelines on managing risk across an organisation and integrating risk management with strategy-setting and performance management.
• ISO 9001:2015 - Quality Management Systems: This standard emphasises the importance of risk-based thinking in quality management systems, ensuring that potential risks are identified, assessed, and managed throughout the product lifecycle.

5. Recommend Corrective Actions

While it’s not always the auditor’s role to prescribe specific corrective actions, providing well-considered recommendations can significantly enhance the value of the audit. The goal of these recommendations is to help the organisation not only address the immediate issue but also to prevent its recurrence by tackling the root cause. Corrective actions should be practical, achievable, and tailored to the organisation’s specific processes and needs. Here’s a detailed breakdown of how to effectively recommend corrective actions:

Understand the Root Cause

Before recommending any corrective action, it’s critical to conduct a thorough root cause analysis. This involves identifying the underlying reasons for the nonconformity, rather than just addressing its symptoms. Root cause analysis techniques such as the "5 Whys," fishbone diagrams (Ishikawa), or failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) can be used to dig deeper into the problem. By understanding the root cause, the recommended actions can be more targeted and effective.

• Example: If a nonconformity is found in the inspection process due to missing measurements, the root cause analysis might reveal that the issue stems from inadequate training or unclear procedures, rather than simple oversight.

Tailor Recommendations to the Organization

Corrective actions should be designed with the organisation’s specific context in mind. What works for one company might not be applicable to another due to differences in resources, processes, or regulatory requirements. Recommendations should consider the organisation’s size, complexity, and industry standards.

• Example: For a small organisation, a recommendation might involve implementing a simple checklist to ensure all inspection steps are followed. For a larger organisation, the recommendation could involve integrating automated inspection tools into the existing quality management system.

Ensure Practicality and Achievability

Corrective actions must be realistic and feasible for the organisation to implement. Recommending actions that are too complex, expensive, or time-consuming might lead to resistance or incomplete implementation. The recommendations should also align with the organisation’s overall strategic goals and resources.

• Example: Instead of recommending a costly overhaul of the entire inspection process, a more practical suggestion could be to enhance the existing process by incorporating periodic audits and retraining sessions.

Focus on Preventing Recurrence

The ultimate aim of corrective actions is to prevent the nonconformity from happening again. This requires addressing not just the immediate issue but also strengthening the overall system to mitigate similar risks in the future. Preventive measures might include revising procedures, improving communication channels, or introducing new technologies.

• Example: If the nonconformity involved incomplete documentation, a corrective action could involve revising the documentation process, implementing digital tools for better tracking, and conducting regular audits to ensure compliance.

Involve Key Stakeholders

Recommendations should involve input from those who will be implementing the corrective actions. Engaging key stakeholders such as process owners, quality managers, and frontline employees ensures that the recommendations are practical and that there is buy-in from those responsible for execution. Collaborative discussions can also lead to more innovative and effective solutions.

• Example: If the recommendation involves updating procedures, involving the staff who follow these procedures can provide insights into potential challenges and opportunities for improvement.

Monitor and Review Corrective Actions

Finally, it’s important to recommend a follow-up mechanism to ensure that the corrective actions are implemented effectively. This might include setting up regular review meetings, monitoring key performance indicators (KPIs), or conducting follow-up audits. Continuous monitoring helps in assessing the effectiveness of the corrective actions and making necessary adjustments.

• Example: After implementing a new inspection procedure, recommend periodic audits to ensure compliance and effectiveness. Additionally, suggest tracking specific KPIs related to defect rates or customer complaints to measure the impact of the corrective actions.

6. Ensure Clarity and Precision

One of the most critical aspects of writing an audit nonconformity report is ensuring that it is clear and precise. The effectiveness of a nonconformity report is greatly diminished if the findings are ambiguous or difficult to understand. Therefore, clarity and precision are paramount in conveying the issues identified during an audit.

Why Clarity and Precision Matter

Clarity and precision in audit reports are essential for several reasons:

• Effective Communication: A nonconformity report is often read by a diverse audience, including management, process owners, and possibly external auditors. These individuals may have varying levels of familiarity with the specific process or technical language. Therefore, the report must be easily understood by all stakeholders to ensure that the message is communicated effectively.
• Preventing Misinterpretation: Ambiguous or unclear language can lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the findings. This can result in inappropriate or ineffective corrective actions, which could further exacerbate the issues rather than resolve them. Precision in language helps prevent such pitfalls.
• Facilitating Corrective Actions: Clear and precise reporting enables the organisation to take swift and appropriate corrective actions. When the nonconformity is described accurately and without ambiguity, it is easier for the responsible parties to understand the root cause and implement effective solutions.

Strategies for Ensuring Clarity and Precision

To achieve clarity and precision in a nonconformity report, consider the following strategies:

1. Use Simple, Direct Language: Avoid using complex or technical jargon that may not be understood by all readers. Instead, use simple and direct language to describe the nonconformity. This ensures that the report is accessible to everyone involved in the corrective action process.
• Example: Instead of writing, "The documentation of dimensional verification was incomplete," say, "The inspection records did not include the required measurements." The latter statement is straightforward and leaves no room for misinterpretation.
2. Be Specific: Precision requires specificity. When describing the nonconformity, provide specific details about what was found and how it deviated from the standard or requirement. This includes specifying which part of the process was noncompliant, the nature of the noncompliance, and the evidence that supports the finding.
• Example: Instead of saying, "The process was not followed correctly," specify, "The final inspection checklist was missing signatures for the dimensional checks on product batch #5678."
3. Avoid Generalisations: General statements can lead to confusion and ineffective corrective actions. Ensure that the report does not generalise the findings but instead focuses on the specific issue at hand.
• Example: Rather than stating, "There were issues with record-keeping," clarify, "Inspection records for product batches #1234 and #5678 were missing the required dimensional measurements."
4. Use Active Voice: Active voice is more direct and easier to understand than passive voice. It clearly indicates who is responsible for the action or oversight, which is crucial in identifying accountability.
• Example: Instead of writing, "Measurements were not recorded," use, "The inspection team did not record the measurements."
5. Provide Context Where Necessary: Sometimes, additional context is required to fully understand the nonconformity. Briefly explain the standard or requirement that was not met, and why it is important. This helps the reader grasp the significance of the nonconformity and the potential risks involved.
• Example: "According to ISO 9001:2015, all critical dimensions must be verified and documented. In this instance, the final inspection records for batch #1234 did not include these critical measurements, potentially allowing non-compliant products to be released."
6. Use Visual Aids Where Applicable: Diagrams, charts, or images can sometimes be more effective than words in conveying certain types of information. If applicable, include visual aids to help illustrate the nonconformity, especially when dealing with complex processes or data.
• Example: A flowchart showing the inspection process, with a highlighted area where the nonconformity occurred, can provide a clear visual representation of the issue.

Examples of Clarity and Precision in Practice

• Clear: "The inspection records did not include the required measurements."
• Explanation: This statement is clear, direct, and leaves no room for ambiguity. It specifies what was missing (the measurements) and where the issue was found (in the inspection records).
• Unclear: "The documentation of dimensional verification was incomplete."
• Explanation: This statement is vague and could be interpreted in several ways. It does not specify what was incomplete or how the documentation fell short of requirements.

Additional Resources for Writing Clear and Precise Reports

• ISO 19011:2018 Guidelines for Auditing Management Systems: This standard provides comprehensive guidelines on auditing, including how to write clear and precise audit findings.
• The Audit Report: Principles and Practice by Jack M. Tosi: A book that delves into the principles of writing effective audit reports, with a focus on clarity and precision.

By ensuring that your nonconformity reports are clear and precise, you contribute to a more effective audit process, which ultimately supports continuous improvement within the organisation. This not only addresses the immediate issues but also helps prevent future nonconformities by facilitating better understanding and implementation of corrective actions.

Conclusion

Writing an effective audit nonconformity report is essential for driving continuous improvement in any organisation. By following these six steps, auditors can ensure that their reports are clear, objective, and actionable. This not only helps in addressing the identified issues but also contributes to the organisation’s overall quality management efforts.

How Posity Online Can Help

At Posity Online, we specialise in helping businesses navigate the NDIS registration process, ensuring they meet all necessary standards to become a registered provider. We also offer ongoing support for NDIS providers, including internal audits, compliance checks, and assistance with NDIS notice letters.

Visit our website to learn more about our services and how we can assist you in your NDIS journey.