PECB ISO-9001-Lead-Auditor Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

The nonconformity was raised against ISO 9001:2015 Clause 8.5.1 – Control of production and service provision. This clause requires organisations to carry out production and service provision under controlled conditions, including:

the use of suitable infrastructure and equipment,

the availability and use of appropriate monitoring and control, and

the prevention of nonconforming outputs being delivered to customers.

In this scenario, the evidence shows a systemic failure in operational control, not isolated human error.

Explanation of the selected evidence:

E. The organisation failed to control the laundry operations in 5 shops adequately.

Clause 8.5.1 requires consistent control of service provision. The fact that 80% of complaints come from five specific shops demonstrates a lack of effective operational control in those locations.

G. The organisation failed to maintain all of its equipment to an adequate standard.

Clause 8.5.1 requires suitable infrastructure for service provision. Management acknowledged that equipment in these shops is old and cannot currently be replaced, meaning it is not being maintained at a level necessary to ensure conformity of service.

H. Some equipment used was not suitable for the laundry process.

The poor cleaning outcomes and high complaint levels directly indicate that the equipment is not fit for purpose, which is a clear breach of the requirement to provide suitable resources for controlled service provision under Clause 8.5.1.

Explanation of why the other options are not appropriate evidence for Clause 8.5.1:

A relates to strategic planning and investment decisions, not directly to operational control.

B and C relate to inspection activities, which were not evidenced in the scenario.

D and F relate to complaint handling behaviour, which would align more closely with Clause 9.1.2 (customer satisfaction) or Clause 10.2 (nonconformity and corrective action), not Clause 8.5.1.

ISO-aligned conclusion:

The nonconformity is justified because the organisation is continuing to provide services using unsuitable and inadequately maintained equipment, resulting in repeated service failures in multiple locations. This demonstrates a clear failure to control service provision as required by ISO 9001:2015 Clause 8.5.1, supported by evidence E, G and H.

According to ISO 9001:2015, clause 8.4, an organization is required to control the processes, products and services provided by external providers, including those that affect the quality of the organization’s own products and services. This includes determining the controls to be applied to the external provision of processes, products and services, as well as the information to be communicated to the external providers. The organization is also required to monitor, measure, and evaluate the performance of the external providers and retain documented information of these activities.

Therefore, in the scenario given, ABC Ltd is responsible for controlling the processes, products and services provided by Teak Ltd, as they affect the quality of ABC Ltd’s own products and services. This means that ABC Ltd should have established criteria and methods for evaluating the performance of Teak Ltd, as well as documented information of the results of such evaluation. ABC Ltd should also have defined the supply arrangements with Teak Ltd, including the specifications, requirements, and verification activities related to the products and services provided by Teak Ltd.

Hence, the best options to describe how to plan the audit of the interrelationship with Teak Ltd during the Stage 2 audit at ABC Ltd are A and D, as they are aligned with the requirements of ISO 9001:2015, clause 8.4. The other options are either irrelevant or beyond the scope of the audit, as they do not pertain to the control of external provision by ABC Ltd.