The F.P. Horak Co.–The Grand Finale
Relatively harmless alone, a minor does its damage in numbers. Specifically, three minors within a single element add up to one major.
Did the auditors find any majors?
Did Horak receive ISO 9002 registration?
After completing their thorough investigation, the auditors wasted no time recommending Horak to the RAB (registrar accreditation board), which, in turn, sent Horak a ISO 9002 certificate documenting the company’s achievement.
As part of the recommendation process, the auditors formally reported their findings for the RAB to review and reject or accept. Based on the auditors’ positive comments, the RAB had no reason to refuse Horak certification.
Not that Horak’s performance was completely flawless. The auditors did find four minor non-conformances in four separate elements.
The first minor was in element 4.13 (control of non-conforming product). Horak’s written procedures indicated that the company would mark two separate zones with colored tape—red tape for non-conforming products, orange for scrap. However, Horak only put the red tape down. The company only planned on setting up the scrap area if it became necessary.
The auditors saw things differently. They interpreted Horak’s procedures as meaning that red and orange markings must appear on the floor. The missing orange tape resulted in a minor.
The auditors also uncovered a problem in element 4.11 (control of inspection, measuring and test equipment). They found a densitometer that wasn’t calibrated. Not a serious issue, but enough for a minor.
The third minor came from element 4.18 (training). The auditors believed that documentation was lacking in this area.
When Horak drafts a new document into the quality system, Krzyminski trains employees personally. He visits the people whom the new document affects and explains the change.
The auditors argued that this method was insufficient. They wanted documentation proving that training took place—a record that workers would sign after Krzyminski had talked to them.