What advice can you give for a company whose various departments refuse to use the same tools for like functions or activities, such as customer requirements and corrective action. How can this lowly auditor get these folks to stop wasting money on different processes that provide the same function? When faced with my findings Manager's state that they have specific needs that the other mechanism does not provide. How could I write this up in an internal audit for ISO 9001: 2000?

How can this lowly auditor get these folks to stop wasting money on different processes that provide the same function?Prove to management that the duplication actually wastes money.
How could I write this up in an internal audit for ISO 9001: 2000?If their various processes meet the requirements in the ISO 9001:2000 standard, you can't. It's not a nonconformance just because it pisses you off.

If you are also auditing company procedures, and these are not being followed, that could result in a nonconformance. Of course, if this is the case, the corrective action might be to just change the procedure so they can go on doing what they like. :lol:

Prove to management that the duplication actually wastes money.I agree. The word effectiveness is mentioned all over the standard. Is the current carry-on effective? You say it's not and I believe you, but as Kerrym said: You will have to prove your point.

That said, the Management review should have a look at it... It's your job to provide info about what you feel is a problem/ineffective, and their job to examine your data (5.6.2a) and decide what (if anything) should be done about it (5.6.3a).

/Claes

......Manager's state that they have specific needs that the other mechanism does not provide......

There may be truth in what they say. Does the system suit their needs? Maybe they really do have a unique requirement.

If not, I have taken a print out of "their system" and compared it point by point to "the official system" to show that their needs are covered.

Sometimes they won't bend. I've had some folks opt out over a minor thing like landscape vs portrait report formats. I just give up and come back at them another day.

Sometimes they won't bend. I've had some folks opt out over a minor thing like landscape vs portrait report formats. I just give up and come back at them another day.I use the same approach. In such cases little will be gained by pushing the issue. We need to choose our battles with care, and as you say there will always be another day.

/Claes

This isn't an auditors job. Its managements responsibility to pull its head out of its butt, make a decision and tell people how things will be done. Its called "MANAGEMENT".

When finding these sorts of things in audits I usually note it as an opportunity for improvement if the business will benefit from using common tools.

I would like to ask these questions though:

1. Do the processes work properly event though different tools are used?

2. Can you quantify the money you refer to being wasted in your post?

3. What is the advatage to the business by having all departments using the same tools?

If you can show examples of non conformances that have arisen due to the different systems and an actual cost saving from adopting a common apprach then highlighting this, especially the cost saving, to the senior management should see you get your desired outcome.

If you can't do any of this then leave the departments alone.

I agree with Randy. If you're the internal auditor, your job is to find objective evidence of compliance or noncompliance. It is the responsibility of the management team to take action based on your findings.

If, in addition to being the internal auditor you are responsible for the system, then you could take some action. One way is to rewrite your procedures to meet current practices, assuming the practices meet all applicable ISO requirements. The other choice is to perform a cost analysis of doing what your departments are currently doing versus how you feel the company should be handling these issues.

Once the facts are on the table, it is up to top management to determine if a change is necessary. After you've presented your facts, if the decision is to continue moving forward as current practice, then you'll need to change the procedures.

Thanks for the replies, this is great because my compadre, another auditor believes the same as Randy, managment needs to decide based on the data or report summary. However, our Manager feels that auditing to compliance only is not "value added". So we have this invisible ideologic tug of war going on whether or not we as auditors should be involved in detecting in-effecient Managment mechanisms and even implementation of better ones, when no one else will. We are both attending a key note speech on being difference makers instead of a job holders, I wonder if that's a hint???

Your manager is correct. ISO 9001 pp 8.2.2 reads, "shall conduct internal audits at planned intervals to determine whether the QMS is effectively implemented and maintained."

ISO 9004 pp8.2.1.3 reads, "examples of subjects for consideration by internal auditing include: a)effective and effecient implementation of processes; b) opportunities for continual improvement..."

ISO 19011 pp 6.2.2 c) reads, "evaluation of the effectiveness of the management system in meeting its specified objectives."

I agree with your manager, and expect my auditors to evaluate effectiveness of the systems they are auditing. I also expect them to document their findings. Thats where it ends with the auditors.

It is the responsibility of top management to determine if changes are necessary. An auditor can only gather facts. The auditors should not be whats driving your system to change.

Auditing is basically a two-fold job in order for it to be a value-added activity.

We need to determine the effectiveness of the system. This means noting not only the nonconformances, but also comment upon what is done well. This kind of comment fits in quite nicely in the Audit Report as you talk about how friendly and courteous the auditees were. :)

I also know that when a person does a job for a long time, they eventually come to work with blinders on. It's all well and good for me to get a finding, but I don't know how to improve what I do. I do what I do and that's all I can say. Having an auditor, a person who continually questions why the system is set up the way it is, is a great resource to help see ideas beyond the blinders. What does Randy call it? Tunopia? A catch term to indicate how fixated we get on our tunnel-vision and inability to see beyond our own cubicle walls.

As an auditor, it is not your job to provide solutions...but you should provide recommendations. Make comments in the audit report about who is using which tools well. Make suggestions that departments visit each other to see how tools are being used. Make the overall recommendation that Management walk around and actually look at what tools their teams are using (or not using) and let them spot the areas for improvement.