3. Continuous improvement
Why do we struggle to close out non conformances?
In this article we discuss the issues around non conformance close out, the causes and what the solution may be.
If you work in technical or quality, you’ve probably felt the pain of chasing non conformances (NCs). You start with good intentions — raise them, assign them, track them — but somehow, they never quite make it to “closed.” Then someone leaves, and suddenly there’s a pile of overdue NCs with their name on them. Sound familiar?
At Techni-K, we see this all the time when helping clients use audIT.app. Reassigning NCs after someone leaves is one of the most common support requests we get. But the real issue isn’t the reassignment — it’s why those NCs weren’t closed out in the first place.
Over time, NCs build up. One becomes five, five become fifty, and before long you’ve got hundreds sitting in the system. It feels impossible to tackle. Even worse, the same problems keep coming up because nothing ever gets resolved. We see the same NC getting raised, again and again — just with a different date. That’s why we’re looking to develop a new feature in audIT.app to help link recurring NCs and allow grouped close-outs, so users can see patterns and finally break the cycle.
But here’s the uncomfortable truth: the real root cause is often senior management commitment. Many managers genuinely believe they have more important things to do. They’ll blame the system, the software, or lack of training — anything except facing the issue head-on.
All the standards and customer codes state that there must be a positive culture, where management and their departments must be committed to closing out non conformances effectively. But in reality this doesn’t seem to be happening within every business. This means that the technical team end up picking up the pieces – they work hard to patch things up before audits, sometimes even hiding how bad it’s really got, just to protect the business. Then, when the audit goes fine, management feels validated — “See? It wasn’t that bad.”
So how do we change it? Maybe that’s the question we should all be asking. What would it take for NCs to become a real business priority? What could leadership do differently to demonstrate that they are committed to continuous improvement — not just compliance on paper?
We’d love to hear your thoughts. Does this ring true for your business? And if not, what actions have you seen that actually work?
The article seems to be familiar with lot of sites, though people back out to accept. Most of the time senior management is first responsible element and by directly responsible for business they keep aside the technical compliance. As said in the end getting patched good grades in the audit management feels like “See? It wasn’t that bad.”
Though in the NC`s there are references of people, equipment, materials, there should be inclusion of finance. At some point the finance is referred regarding the equipment and materials but it should be stated at the ground level.
For me the key is to be selective in what you choose to call a non-conformance. Appreciate that there is only so much time, resource and funding and tailor the number of non-conformances to this. Choosing the most significant issues of course!
As these get resolved you can progressively move down the list. There are of course 1,000s of things that are imperfect and it would more than a career span to resolve everything BUT by tackling the biggest and seeing the success of resolving those non-conformances raised, a positive culture of success and continuous steady improvement can be built.
Closing out NCs is a perennial problem for me and my team. 28 days is more than enough time to get them complete but, as you say, the senior management commitment is where the problem usually arises, as they don’t see it as a priority. Unfortunately, and as much as I don’t want to, escalating further up the chain is the only way forward.
I regularly name and shame department heads in our weekly meeting if NCs are overdue.
I also forbid my team from hiding open NCs pre-audit. Sure enough we were recently caught out in our BRCGS audit for this issue, that helped to hammer the message home to the offending department and the wider senior management team.
Good for you Bill! Do you have any advice for other TMs for how they can have the confidence to do this too?
Auditors should be looking for those issues and trends – and that includes Internal and External Auditors. That includes checking Management Reviews, Internal Audits, Corrective Actions etc. It is why the BRCGS audit should be a thorough examination of a Site and it’s processes – not just a tick box exercise with a guaranteed AA Grade,
Senior Management Commitment has always been one of the most Contentious Clauses to raise an NC against – especially Internally – and it would be a very brave Internal Auditor to raise an NC for that.
Totally agree Jason. I so wish they would though – as nothing will ever change if they don’t.
It also applies to our activity.
What’s needed is to clearly define the nature of the non conformities (GMP – INFRASTRUCTURE – PROCESS, etc.) and to specify in detail where they originate (department, …). Only by presenting this information during the management review can we show where the real issues lie and provide evidence that cannot be ignored.