The Global Coalition for Sustained Excellence in Food & Health Protection invites you to have your say. This is an action campaign that calls for collaborative engagement.
She did a brave job indicating the failure. But doing it in front of the auditor to make her company fail the audit is not appreciable. She could have done the same during internal audits and rectify the flaw through proper corrective actions.
Unfortunately I think the answer to Pragash is in the text "management determined to do nothing further than was already done since “there was no recorded consumer or regulatory complaint that was linked to under-cooked product”. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Given this sort of attitude I have a low level of confidence that the management understood or wanted to understand there was a fundamental problem. I feel that if Candice continued to protest they may have decided to remove her. There were other people aware of the problem - Candice was professional enough to decide not to be associated with it any longer. Interestingly it also demonstrates how that audits only cover what is seen on the day
Andy is right. If QA people protest they get removed by the management or the management convinces them. But it is normal in the life of a QA person. He is supposed to educate the management on the problems. I am taught to do so all the time. To educate people on the problems, make them aware, try to find the proper solution which can convince the management also etc., But never let the company down on an audit since it is not the failure of the management. It is the failure of that QA person.
She did a brave job indicating the failure. But doing it in front of the auditor to make her company fail the audit is not appreciable. She could have done the same during internal audits and rectify the flaw through proper corrective actions.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately I think the answer to Pragash is in the text "management determined to do nothing further than was already done since “there was no recorded consumer or regulatory complaint that was linked to under-cooked product”. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
DeleteGiven this sort of attitude I have a low level of confidence that the management understood or wanted to understand there was a fundamental problem. I feel that if Candice continued to protest they may have decided to remove her. There were other people aware of the problem - Candice was professional enough to decide not to be associated with it any longer.
Interestingly it also demonstrates how that audits only cover what is seen on the day
Great comment Andy, particularly the part about: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
DeleteAndy is right. If QA people protest they get removed by the management or the management convinces them. But it is normal in the life of a QA person. He is supposed to educate the management on the problems. I am taught to do so all the time. To educate people on the problems, make them aware, try to find the proper solution which can convince the management also etc., But never let the company down on an audit since it is not the failure of the management. It is the failure of that QA person.
ReplyDelete