10.1 Nonconformity and corrective action
Determine opportunities for improvement and implement the actions needed to achieve the intended BCMS outcomes; when a nonconformity occurs, react to it and deal with its consequences, evaluate whether action is needed t
5
artefacts
0
held by a system
3
at each review
hard
to go live
Policy repository / GRC workspace
where the evidence lives
teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review
system holds itEvidence a system already holds
none for this control
periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review
- Root cause analysis records · Policy repository / GRC workspace
- Corrective action records with an effectiveness review · Policy repository / GRC workspace
- Evidence of any resulting BCMS change · Policy repository / GRC workspace
governing documentDocuments that govern the control
- Nonconformity register with source, description and immediate correction · Policy repository / GRC workspace
- Extent of condition check for similar nonconformities elsewhere · Policy repository / GRC workspace
First move
This control is evidenced by people and documents, not systems. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date. Do not try to automate it.
Common gaps auditors find
- Correction recorded as corrective action, with the cause never examined
- Root cause stated as human error, which stops the analysis rather than completing it
- No extent of condition check, so the same failure recurs in a sister site
- Effectiveness review missing, so recurrence is the only test the action ever gets
- Action disproportionate to effect in either direction, over engineered or nominal
Do this for your whole sheet
Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.
Build my evidence sheet9.3.3 Management review outputs · 10.2 Continual improvement