Right now we auditors, are having an ideological battle with our Manager regarding Suitability. We prefer to perform system audits against our quality manual and the ISO9001: 2000 standard. He wants us to focus on the suitability of the processes each area has implemented as part of the quality system. From our perspective suitability is a grey area best decided upon the experts in the area. From his perspective, we are supposed to be the system experts and should be able to assess methodology suitability. How do you feel about auditing to suitability versus compliance?
:nopity:

Suitability is an auditable item. In particular there is a direct reference to suitability in Clause 5.3 Quality Policy, 5.6 Management Review and 8.4 Analysis of Data and if you notice it relates to Top Managements review of QMS based on analysis of the data.

The use of suitability test during an audit allows your organization to look at process, procedures etc to determine if they are appropriate to a given process. As you know the basis of the ISO 9001:2000 Management System for Quality (my take on what the standards title should be) is PDCA as stated in 0.2.

My recommendation is to review the various documents found on the ISO/IAF ISO 9001 Auditing Practices Group web site (do a googal on Auditing Practices Group) and review their recommended practices. I think you will find that auditing is more than a check for conformance. It's also a tool for Top Management to make improvements within the organization so that it can meet the customer changing expectations and make money too.

Just my thoughts on the subject,

Jeff

Remember the story of the little boy at the parade, who knew the emperor was naked when no one else would see.

Without being an expert in the process--indeed, sometimes expertise can influence a comfort level that invites one to "overlook" things--one can observe a process proceeding throughout to a hopefully logical conclusion.

If you haven't yet read his work, I will now direct you to our esteemed colleague Allan J. Sayle in The Reading Room forum, who writes very well about value-added auditing.

As part of the concept of making audit teams as effective as possible, consider ensuring a true cross-functional audit team. Sometimes the relative naiveté of one or two team members can bring out stuff the more process-savvy stuff would ignore asking because they "a$$ume" everything is running smoothly.

Yep! I agree with Jennifer - it always helps to have somebody say "The emperor has no clothes!"

As part of the concept of making audit teams as effective as possible, consider ensuring a true cross-functional audit team. Absolutley true: see the WHERE do you find your internal auditors? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6234&highlight=internal+auditors) thread.

/Claes

Going to the site referenced in Jeff Frost's posting for the Auditing Practices Group and doing the search for value-added auditing on it from Jennifer Kirley's post.
The question seems to be are you going to do an audit just to be compliant with the ISO or is your QMS going to a an asset to the company in ways of improving the process?

The little box with the four squares that I like to use within my own company for discussions is on the Auditing Practices Group and explains how it applies to the QMS and auditing.

From the little bit I could glean from your post and informed people who answered your post, I would recommend getting as much information from your Manager on the process of auditing suitability to help my own growth.

From my own experience, you really do what to be part of the value added group.

If you have the time find and read all of Wes Bucey's comments and postings and the reasons for it becomes very clear.

If that does not encourage you, the following Email address is to a very good headhunter - theresam (at) mriseattle (dot) com [nospam]

Thanks all excellent posts. Drilling deeper into the issue, as an internal auditor we are challenged then with making possible recommendations for every finding we write, especially if the finding was suitability. The Emperor's New Clothes analogy doesn't "fit" as the boy is merely making an observation with no recommendations.

What I am calling into question is that when one audits to suitability, very rarely do instances exist, in my experience, that something is cut and dry unsuitable. In my company there is a bad habit of canning people as mid and lower management levels if their recommendation is the wrong one hence, we (internal auditors) are shying away from a suitability determination unless it is so outrageous it is obvious. So the fear factor is creating a negative effect which is the root cause of our decision not to audit to that area.

I will definitely read up on Mr. Frosts recommendations. Thanks again. :D