ES Book demo
EAFLOW · SOLUTIONS · CROSS-INDUSTRY SOLUTION

Domain Investigations and Nonconformities

A finding opens an investigation with a named investigator, scoped access to the case file and a substantiated conclusion — with a corrective action where one is warranted, and effectiveness verification where the domain and the action call for it.

Evaluate an investigation See BPMflow →
Category
Domain Investigations and Nonconformities — cross-industry solution on the Operational Graph
When to use
A quality finding, a workplace report, a failed control or a questioned claim that needs analysis, a decision and evidence before it can be closed
Users
Quality assurance, HR, risk and compliance, claims handling, internal audit, and the authorized owners who rule on each case
Output
An investigation with a named investigator, access scoped by domain, a substantiated conclusion, a corrective action where warranted, and effectiveness verification where the domain requires it
Implementation
Cross-industry solution with assisted implementation; runs alongside the existing quality system, HR record and risk platform
Does not replace
It does not replace the laboratory quality system, the HR record, the risk platform or the insurance core, and it does not impose the disciplinary measure or the coverage decision: it adds the investigation itself — a named investigator, scoped access, a substantiated conclusion and whatever effectiveness verification the domain requires.

01 · The problem

Logging the nonconformity is the paperwork; the investigation is the work still ahead

A finding is logged and the file stops there: the document exists, the cause does not. Who analyzed it, on what evidence and under whose authority it was concluded never reach the record. And when a case is sensitive, it either circulates among people who should not see it or sits where nobody can review it later.

The analysis runs on whatever is at hand: Microsoft Excel spreadsheets listing the open cases, restricted Microsoft SharePoint folders for anything sensitive, and email to request a statement. None of them records who investigated, or who authorized the closure.

A document file is not yet an investigation: it has no investigator, and nobody owns the conclusion.

02 · The investigation

From a finding to a signed conclusion, with or without a corrective action

Every finding opens a case with a named investigator, a deadline and a scope. The statement, the lab result and the third-party report land in the same file, each with its author and its timestamp.

The case draws on the approved definitions of the Operational Graph: the finding is tied to the process, the control, the current procedure and the batch or claim behind it. BPMflow runs the assignment, the deadlines, the permissions and the evidence.

What counts as closure

  • Concluding is not correcting. An investigation can close on a substantiated conclusion with no corrective action: that is an outcome in itself.
  • Completing an action is not proving it worked. Effectiveness is verified separately, where the domain and the action call for it.
  • Closure is confirmed by the system of record or by the authorized owner, whichever was agreed for that case.

Quality Document Management for CPG supplies the current procedure; Risk & Control Assurance, the affected control. Where the conclusion leads to a role change or an exit, the work continues in Employee Lifecycle Operations; where the finding comes out of an open case, in Claims and Service Coordination.

03 · Domain variants

Four domains investigate the same fact under different rules

All four share the case file, the tasks and the evidence. They do not share the trigger, the investigator, the authority to rule or the test for closure.

Quality — CPG and manufacturing

Trigger
A process deviation, an out-of-specification result, or a complaint traced to a batch.
Investigates and rules
Quality assurance with the plant; batch disposition is authorized by the site quality lead.
Who sees the file
Quality, plant and audit, with the current procedure in view.
What closes the case
Cause, batch-level scope and product disposition; the corrective action is verified later.

People — sensitive cases

Trigger
A report through the internal channel, a manager's escalation, or observed conduct.
Investigates and rules
An investigator outside the reporting line; the committee or HR rules, depending on severity.
Who sees the file
Participants cleared one at a time; the reporter's identity can stay confidential.
What closes the case
A substantiated conclusion, with or without a measure; employment measures follow their own procedure.

Risk and control

Trigger
A failed control, an audit finding, or a regulatory obligation that changed.
Investigates and rules
The control owner with the risk team; remediation is approved by the committee.
Who sees the file
Risk, audit and the affected function; evidence is retained for later review.
What closes the case
Cause, remediation with an owner and a date, and proof the control is operating again.

Insurance — questioned claims

Trigger
A gap between what was declared and what the adjuster found, or inconsistent documentation.
Investigates and rules
Claims handling with adjusters and cleared third parties; the authorized owner rules.
Who sees the file
Each third party sees only its own request; case background stays with the internal team.
What closes the case
A conclusion with its grounds and the decision the policy calls for; coverage assessment stays in its own systems.

04 · Capabilities

What goes on record while an investigation is open

The case shows its domain, its investigator and what is still missing. Max answers about the file within the authorized context.

  • Named investigator

    Assigned with a deadline, a scope and no open conflict of interest.

  • Attributed evidence

    Statements, analyses, photographs and third-party reports, each with its author.

  • Substantiated conclusion

    Cause, scope and grounds, with or without a corrective action attached.

  • Actions and effectiveness

    Each action is tracked; effectiveness is scheduled where the domain requires it.

05 · Roles

Who investigates, who rules and who verifies effectiveness

Domain owner

Opens the case and answers for its progress.

What they see

Cases in their domain by status and age.

What they do

Grades the finding, names an investigator and sets the scope.

Named investigator

Gathers evidence and proposes the conclusion.

What they see

The assigned case and the documentation cleared for it.

What they do

Requests statements, adds reports and drafts the grounds.

Authorized owner

Rules within their scope.

What they see

The proposed conclusion and the actions suggested.

What they do

Approves, orders actions, or returns the case with a query.

Internal audit

Tests what was done.

What they see

The full file within their review scope.

What they do

Verifies the committed effectiveness and records the result.

06 · Confidentiality

Access to the case file is not the same for every participant

  • Scoped participation

    Each third party contributes what was asked of it and sees only that part.

  • Reporter confidentiality

    Where the domain allows it, the reporter is shielded without losing traceability.

  • Later review

    Audit reaches the full file within its scope, and that access is recorded.

07 · Implementation

Start with the domain that already has open cases

One domain is configured first; the next ones reuse the case file and the evidence without inheriting its permissions.

1 · Agree the domain

Rules that belong to one domain

Which findings are in scope, who investigates, who rules, who sees the case and what closes it.

2 · Bring in the context

Procedure, control, batch or originating case

The finding is tied to the current document, the affected control and the owner who can resolve it.

3 · Pilot and hand over

Real cases, permissions and verification

It runs on cases from the current period, permissions and deadlines are adjusted, and the client team operates it.

08 · Typical scenarios

Findings that open an investigation

  • Process deviation on the line
  • Out-of-specification result
  • Report through the internal channel
  • Control failure in a periodic test
  • Internal audit finding
  • Claim with inconsistent documentation

An investigation ends when someone can explain what happened, an authorized owner rules on it, and the outcome is on record. Starting with a single domain is the practical way in.

Evaluate an investigation See Quality Document Management for CPG → See Risk & Control Assurance → Back to Solutions

Domain investigations and nonconformities is an EAFlow cross-industry solution on the Operational Graph, supported by the BPMflow automation capabilities. Quality Document Management for CPG supplies the document context; the investigation is a path of its own.