ISO-9001-Lead-Auditor Exam Dumps : QMS ISO 9001:2015 Lead Auditor Exam

According to ISO 9001:2015, clause 9.2.2.e, the organization is required to retain documented information as evidence of the implementation of the audit programme and the audit results. This includes the records of the nonconformities identified during the internal audits and the corrective actions taken to address them. The organization is also required to verify the effectiveness of the corrective actions, as per clause 10.2.2.

Therefore, in the scenario given, the Quality Manager’s decision to automatically close any nonconformance over 3 years old without obtaining any confirmation from the relevant departments or verifying the effectiveness of the corrective actions is a clear violation of the requirements of clause 9.2.2.e. This indicates a lack of control and follow-up of the internal audit process, as well as a potential risk of recurrence or occurrence of the nonconformities in other areas. This also undermines the credibility and value of the internal audit programme, as well as the risk-based approach claimed by the Quality Manager.

Hence, the best course of action to take is D, to raise a nonconformance report against clause 9.2.2.e of ISO 9001, and to communicate the audit findings to the relevant management. The other options are either insufficient or irrelevant to address the issue, as they do not directly relate to the noncompliance with clause 9.2.2.e.

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.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

ISO 9000:2015 defines quality as "the degree to which a set of inherent characteristics of an object fulfills requirements."

Clause 3.6.2 (Quality) confirms this definition.

Quality is determined by how well an object (product, service, or process) meets defined requirements (customer, regulatory, or internal).

The other options do not align with the official ISO definition:

Option A refers to performance capability but does not define quality.

Option C describes work conditions, not quality.

Option D focuses on efficiency rather than fulfilling requirements.