There has been considerable discussion in other threads about the benefits (or otherwise) of audits. With some Covers claiming to offer value added audits and others stating that it either doesn't exist or has no place in the registration process.

I would like people to give their opinion (preferably with examples) on the idea of value added audits.

I voted external audits provided value added.
Heading down the road to TS16949 registration I welcomed all the input I could get. So I used 2 consultants over the time span, and a pre-assessment.
These all added value to our system implementation and achieving certification. Every audit Ihave had over the years wether 3rd party or 2nd party such as GM, Ford, Chrysler, DOD always resulted in something to improve the system and help customer satisfaction. I have been doing this for 37 years and have been audited by good and bad auditors. But, no bad ones for a long time. The professionalism has improved greatly, probably due to more educational and experience requirements. My 2 cents.

I voted yes, they have added value to the organization. There have been opportunities for improvement or actual non-conformances written against us that did not have value, only more paperwork, but the majority of my experiences have been value added. I believe another set of eyes can only help.

I voted that I felt my external audits have added value to a client's operations, because my clients have told me this, with their pocketbooks and their feet. Over the last 13+ years of being a Registrar Auditor, with a change in Registrar about a year ago, I've had clients that have been with me for over 10 yrs, who have repeatedly indicated that they specifically look to work with me and look forward to their audits, because of my thoroughness and value added observations (not consulting) :o The clients that came over to my current Registrar, made it clear that the reason was they wanted to continue the professional relationship with me.

I am neither an easy nor unreasonable auditor (the clients' words). Gratefully, I have had clients thank me for my time and efforts and have told me that I have helped make their business better, even though they are paying for it and, in my mind, I'm just trying to deliver the service that they expect (and then some). :) I am extremely careful to watch what OFI's I am suggesting, so that I am not consulting nor offering up the competitions' secrets. Although I'm certain there are some horror stories out there (as with any profession), the 3rd party auditors I've had the pleasure to work with, conduct themselves similarly.

Within this context, I always consider the clients' requests, as they ultimately determine the level of their customer satisfaction with my Registrar's (and my) provided service. That said, I must confess I was amazed at Carl's comments, in another thread, that he wanted no value-added actions (non-consulting) whatsoever and a strictly "by the book" audit. Before my comment starts off another p***ing match, I want to make clear that I have no problem with this, although it would seem counterproductive in my (and I think most 3rd party auditors') eyes. In all my years of auditing, with all different company sizes', well-known, as well as, "mom and pop" outfits, I have NEVER heard of any client not wanting value-added remarks :confused: (Honest to God, Cross my heart and hope to die, stick a needle in my eye). Carl is the first. Again, I don't have a problem with Carl's statement, if that's what he wants out of his audit. My only concern would be whether or not he has made sure the auditor, that he works with, understands his expectation. If Carl has, then that's his prerogative.

I believe some of the problem in other related threads, revolves around peoples' personal opinion of what constitutes "consulting" or "value-added". And, yes, even if there are Tech Guideline documents setting the tone for these descriptors, there is obviously still enough gray area left open to interpretation, judging from all the discussion. My :2cents: worth (hopefully, without any hint of consulting) ;)

I voted no, but I was not comfortable with the polling questions - they did not seem clear and cohesive. First of all, it only generally refers to "an external audit". External audit of what kind? 2nd party? 3rd party? or consulting oriented? I may have answered differently for each one.

It is also confusing as to the perspective of the target of the poll. The first choice seems to target the auditee, whereas the second targets the auditor. I also do not know what "...is a non-starter" means.

It might have been clearer if, for example, the poll related to 3rd party audits where the target is the auditee (the company being audited). Then the question might have been: What is your experience with value-adding 3rd party audits?, with the following choices:
- Very Good. They offered a value-adding service that helped my organization
- Fair. The value was limited.
- Poor. I expected value adding assistance but did not receive it.
- I did not expect, nor want value-adding service - simply confirmation of compliance or not.

However, if I paid a consulting service to externally audit my system, I would expect a whole lot of value adding going on.

I voted no/non starter for the same reasons as Rob Nix.

Well said Rob.

Carl-

Rob, you may be right in your comments about the poll not being clear. I will try to explain the intent.
I voted no, but I was not comfortable with the polling questions - they did not seem clear and cohesive. First of all, it only generally refers to "an external audit". External audit of what kind? 2nd party? 3rd party? or consulting oriented? I may have answered differently for each one. I was referring to 3rd party audits. if people have examples of 2nd party or consulting audits either being value adding or not - then that all adds to the debate.

It is also confusing as to the perspective of the target of the poll. The first choice seems to target the auditee, whereas the second targets the auditor. This was to allow those of us who carry out 3rd party audits to have the opportunity of saying whether we feel we go beyond ISO and into the value add (while navigating carefully around the consulting iceberg)
I also do not know what "...is a non-starter" means. In other threads people have stated that "value add" is something they do not want to see cross the threshold dressed as a 3rd party audit. In other words - leave it to the consultants.

It might have been clearer if, for example, the poll related to 3rd party audits where the target is the auditee (the company being audited). Then the question might have been: What is your experience with value-adding 3rd party audits?, with the following choices:
- Very Good. They offered a value-adding service that helped my organization
- Fair. The value was limited.
- Poor. I expected value adding assistance but did not receive it.
- I did not expect, nor want value-adding service - simply confirmation of compliance or not. Perhaps when this poll has run its course (albeit with somewhat dodgy poll response options) someone will try this alternative approach.

However, if I paid a consulting service to externally audit my system, I would expect a whole lot of value adding going on. And if you got some of it for free with your ISO registration would that interest you?

Can someone draw the line for me between “value added” auditing and consulting? I’m guessing that if the suggestions made could cause a conflict of interest next audit, you’ve crossed the line into consulting. Is that about accurate?

...my external audits have added value to a client's operations, because my clients have told me this, with their pocketbooks and their feet. Over the last 13+ years of being a Registrar Auditor, with a change in Registrar about a year ago, I've had clients that have been with me for over 10 yrs, who have repeatedly indicated that they specifically look to work with me and look forward to their audits, because of my thoroughness and value added observations (not consulting) ...

Right on!

I hope I'm not in the minority here, but I care little about auditing for compliance. That path leads to "concrete parachutes" and "buying a plaque for the wall". Any halfways decent mature quality system will be pretty close ot compliant.

I want what you provide. A peek at the outside world. Access to new ideas.

Call it consulting, call it consauditing...call it your pappy. It's what makes the audit process worthwhile for me.

I do notice that this skill is "auditor specific". Some know how to help me see a better way, others are just looking for rev numbers and cal stickers.

I think trade secrets are a red herring. Even before the internet, there really weren't any secrets that provided any competitive advantage for any length of time. At least not in my industry.

And if you got some of it for free with your ISO registration would that interest you?

I guess a lot depends on the knowledge and experience (related to the standards) of the people within the organization. IMHO, I know enough about quality systems, picked up over the last 30 years, to set up an effective QMS; so that all I want from a registrar is to buy a certificate (with the major proviso that a key customer requires it). If that means enduring a few hours of questions and paying a few dollars, so be it.

I understand Caster's thought about getting an outsider's take, "thinking outside the box", but I simply prefer to get that by different means, e.g. trade shows, seminars, conferences, books, etc.

No offense to the fine auditors out there (no offence to the English registrars), but after going through hundreds of audits (on both sides of the fence), I've become numb to the accretionary suggestions on how to better format your CAR form, or put up a board in the shop for measureables, or setting up a suggestion system.

I'm sure there are many companies that are still unfamiliar with ISO and its relatives, and the ideas they espouse, that would welcome having a single organization (i.e. registrar) that could help them improve their systems AND get them ISO registered, rather than hire both a consultant AND a registrar. But I believe that fewer companies will fit that description as time goes on, and then what are you going to do?

It's a thin line you registrar folks walk, and I don't envy you. I couldn't do 3rd party audits because I wouldn't be able to resist the urge to tell them specifically what would work for them, and then create for them on the spot.

I'm rambling now, so I'll stop..... :rolleyes:

Most of my clients feel the external registration audit is value added. The one that doesn't, also does not take a 'value addded' approach to ISO. They also may not be a client much longer.

Looking at myself as an "external" internal auditor in some cases, I've provided consulting tips when I saw fit. They were not out of compliance to the customer requirements, or ISO, but I saw potential for improvement. I asked the QM if he wanted me to point out those things which were 100% based on experience and could be considered 'preventive action' and he said 'Absolutely.'
In that regard, I think their 'internal audit' is more valuable that a couple of 16 hour course internal 'trainees' that may only audit to fulfill the requirement. They seemed very happy to have outsourced the internal audit component.
I do have a little concern that their particular registrar is not known for 'value added' audits, and they may think I'm being 'too hard' but the QM and I hit is off and the organization is 'doing ISO' for the right reason.

I am all for external audits.

But, let me explain what I mean by external audits. Almost all management system standards specify periodic audits to be carried by the organization to find out the status (effectiveness) of system implementation and to idenify any areas for improvement. If the organization has taken third-party certification then the certification agency carries out their periodic audits for the purpose of deciding for continuation or otherwise of system certification. Audits carried out by the organization are termed as internal audits and by the certification agency as external audits.

It has been my experience that both these audits, as these are being carried out, are not adding any substantial value to the organization's business performance and system implementation. In both these audits, auditors generally refrain from giving major NC and many areas needing immediate attention remain unreported. Where, internal auditors have their own compulsions of protecting themselves from the ire of the process heads if they report a NC in their process, external auditors have their business compulsion, as the organization might not be close major NC and the agency might loose a client.

It is therefore advisable to get an external audit done by an auditor or an agency which is totally independent and have no compulsions of not reporting the actual performance and areas of improvement. This report may be kept confidential and be used by the top management to take required actions.

Can someone draw the line for me between “value added” auditing and consulting? I’m guessing that if the suggestions made could cause a conflict of interest next audit, you’ve crossed the line into consulting. Is that about accurate?
First of all, thanks Paul for creating this poll. I am still puzzled by how we can reach so drastically opposing views after reading the IAF Guidance to Guide 62. The one thing that is unquestionable is that nobody involved with consulting should find themselves in the role of a 3rd party assessor (and vice versa) for the same organization. That is clearly a conflict of interest and it is prohibited.
So, in my view point, the next logical question is: What constitutes consulting? Would a preliminary assessment, prior to the actual certification audit be deemed as consulting? What about a private training session? Etc.
Questions like that is what the IAF Guidance document attempts to answer in paragraph G.2.1.24


"...G.2.1.24. Certification/registration bodies can carry out the following duties without them being considered as consultancy or necessarily creating a conflict of interests. However, all potential conflicts of interests should be dealt with in accordance with G.2.1.29:



a) certification/registration including information meetings, planning meetings, examination of documents, auditing (not internal auditing) and follow up of nonconformities;


b) arranging and participating as a lecturer in training courses, provided that where these courses relate to quality assurance, management systems or auditing they should confine themselves to the provision of generic information and advice which is freely available in the public domain, i.e. they should not provide company specific advice which contravenes the requirements of G.2.1.23.c);


c) making available or publishing on request information on the basis for the certification/registration body’s interpretation of the requirements of the assessment standards;


d) activities prior to audit aimed solely at determining readiness for assessment; but such activities should not result in the provision of recommendations or advice that would contravene guidance G.2.1.23. and the certification/registration body should be able to confirm that such activities do not contravene these provisions and that they are not used to justify a reduction in the eventual assessment duration;


e) performing second and third party audits according to other standards or regulations than those being part of the scope of accreditation;


f) adding value during assessments and surveillance visits, e.g., by identifying opportunities for improvement, as they become evident, during the audit without recommending specific solutions..."

I will certainly be paying attention to the poll results here. If it becomes clear that the majority does not want value added assessments by their external auditors, I would probably be inclined to invite Paul for a partnership and release the Valueless Audits ® approach http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/lmao.gif
Auditor too nosy and oppinionated? Try our Valueless Audits ® http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/omg.gif

I will certainly be paying attention to the poll results here. If it becomes clear that the majority does not want value added assessments by their external auditors, I would probably be inclined to invite Paul for a partnership and release the Valueless Audits ® approach http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/lmao.gif
Auditor too nosy and oppinionated? Try our Valueless Audits ® http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/omg.gif
I swore to myself that I was going to steer clear of this one, but let me step in for a moment in order to attempt to add value to the discussion.
I think Sidney is creating a false dichotomy here, albeit in a lighthearted way. The issue is not value or no value; it's obvious that any efficacious audit will be a valuable tool in one way or another. The question, which seems to keep getting trampled underfoot, is whether or not a registrar's auditor (as that is what Guide 62 addresses) should have the option to materially assist an auditee in correcting issues that might prevent registration. If you answer in the affirmative, then you have to answer an additional question: Do you think it equitable that a registrar's auditor, out of the goodness of his heart, assists one auditee, but because he's having a bad day, or just doesn't feel like it, doesn't offer equivalent assistance to the auditee's competitor?

I will certainly be paying attention to the poll results here. If it becomes clear that the majority does not want value added assessments by their external auditors, I would probably be inclined to invite Paul for a partnership and release the Valueless Audits ® approach http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/lmao.gif

Auditor too nosy and oppinionated? Try our Valueless Audits ® http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/omg.gif [/size] I am right there, Sidney. I have already registered "Tick in a box Inc." and "Hang it on the wall Ltd." for the certificate seekers. I am working on a trademark ... something like "Audit without having to think about it" perhaps?

The question, which seems to keep getting trampled underfoot, is whether or not a registrar's auditor (as that is what Guide 62 addresses) should have the option to materially assist an auditee in correcting issues that might prevent registration.]The poll was specifically about adding value during an audit. Discussed in much detail elsewhere. I would rather stick to the wording of Guide 62 (First para in my quote from Sidney's post) that enter another round of discussion of interpretation. f) adding value during assessments and surveillance visits, e.g., by identifying opportunities for improvement, as they become evident, during the audit without recommending specific solutions..."

It has been my experience that both these audits, as these are being carried out, are not adding any substantial value to the organization's business performance and system implementation. In both these audits, auditors generally refrain from giving major NC and many areas needing immediate attention remain unreported. Where, internal auditors have their own compulsions of protecting themselves from the ire of the process heads if they report a NC in their process, external auditors have their business compulsion, as the organization might not be close major NC and the agency might loose a client.


I'm glad you qualified your remarks with "...my experience", because YOUR experience does not reflect what I, as a 3rd party Registrar Auditor, and my colleagues (over 13 yrs., at 2 major Registrars) do in the field. I have NEVER hesitated to write MAJOR's/NC's in any situation, when warranted, for 2 very good reasons: 1) I am not doing the company who is trying to get registered the "favor" of passing them, and 2) I feel I'm protecting the value of the "piece of paper" that other companies have worked hard to achieve. For the folks I have written MAJOR's to, they have always (maybe grudgingly at first) conceded that the MAJOR was deserved and that it actually helped strengthen their system. I also give them the 2 reasons above, and they agree, because once they have achieved their certification, they don't want it "watered down" either.

It is very tiresome in Cove threads, to see terms like "auditors generally", etc., when the person emailing is speaking from their own experience (or a few of their friends) only. :frust: Using vague generalizations, about anything, only promotes rumor and folklore. As I have often said, I don't doubt that some of you have had bad experiences, but I can say the same about auto mechanics, doctors, lawyers, HR ...and some ISO clients, etc., and yet I don't condemn entire groups. It comes down to the person you're interfacing with, and if you have had a bad experience, maybe you need to ask for a different auditor, or get a different Registrar. We are not all cut from the same cloth.

Regarding your "Internal Auditor" comments, I always tell people at the closing meeting, that these folks have one of the tougher jobs in ISO, as they must audit people on a Friday and come back on Monday, to work side by side with them. Not easy to do, when auditees can take things personally. That is where YOU come in, Mr. Site Management, in making sure your personnel understand the purpose of the auditing (not as a Witch Hunt, but as a way of making your company more efficient) AND in supporting these folks, including whatever valid comments they document. If your Internal Auditors are more concerned about "...protecting themselves from the ire of the process heads..", and that you feel this decreases the value of your Internal Audits, it becomes obvious that YOUR management is sending mixed signals about it's support of your QMS and that is YOUR managements' fault, not the auditors or the internal auditor process. :(

It is very tiresome in Cove threads, to see terms like "auditors generally", etc., when the person emailing is speaking from their own experience (or a few of their friends) only. http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/frustrated.gif Using vague generalizations, about anything, only promotes rumor and folklore. As I have often said, I don't doubt that some of you have had bad experiences, but I can say the same about auto mechanics, doctors, lawyers, HR ...and some ISO clients, etc., and yet I don't condemn entire groups. It comes down to the person you're interfacing with, and if you have had a bad experience, maybe you need to ask for a different auditor, or get a different Registrar. We are not all cut from the same cloth.
A very articulate and well-reasoned post:agree1: . The only thing I'd like to point out is that we are all prisoners of our own experiences; I think it's a valuable thing for everyone to relate their own, and that there are people like you on the other side of the fence who can provide some additional illumination and balance.

I don't find any conflict between 'value auditing' and consulting. Both are aimed to achieve same result, and that is improvemnt of system implementation. Both are adding value to the system.

I'm glad you qualified your remarks with "...my experience", because YOUR experience does not reflect what I, as a 3rd party Registrar Auditor, and my colleagues (over 13 yrs., at 2 major Registrars) do in the field. I have NEVER hesitated to write MAJOR's/NC's in any situation, when warranted, for 2 very good reasons: 1) I am not doing the company who is trying to get registered the "favor" of passing them, and 2) I feel I'm protecting the value of the "piece of paper" that other companies have worked hard to achieve. For the folks I have written MAJOR's to, they have always (maybe grudgingly at first) conceded that the MAJOR was deserved and that it actually helped strengthen their system. I also give them the 2 reasons above, and they agree, because once they have achieved their certification, they don't want it "watered down" either.

I agree with your viewpoint. As a matter of fact, I was only advocating an external audit done by an independent person or organization in addition to company's own internal audit and external audit by certification agency (CA). The need of such an external audit has to be determined by the company. If the company is getting value addition through internal audits and CA audits then there will be no need for an additional external audit.

It is very tiresome in Cove threads, to see terms like "auditors generally", etc., when the person emailing is speaking from their own experience (or a few of their friends) only. :frust: Using vague generalizations, about anything, only promotes rumor and folklore. As I have often said, I don't doubt that some of you have had bad experiences, but I can say the same about auto mechanics, doctors, lawyers, HR ...and some ISO clients, etc., and yet I don't condemn entire groups. [COLOR=RoyalBlue]It comes down to the person you're interfacing with, and if you have had a bad experience, maybe you need to ask for a different auditor, or get a different Registrar. We are not all cut from the same cloth.

I agree that vague generalizations should be avoided based on experience with one or two auditors, certification agencies or consultants only. One should share his or her experience and avoid passing judgments.

Regarding your "Internal Auditor" comments, I always tell people at the closing meeting, that these folks have one of the tougher jobs in ISO, as they must audit people on a Friday and come back on Monday, to work side by side with them. Not easy to do, when auditees can take things personally. That is where YOU come in, Mr. Site Management, in making sure your personnel understand the purpose of the auditing (not as a Witch Hunt, but as a way of making your company more efficient) AND in supporting these folks, including whatever valid comments they document. If your Internal Auditors are more concerned about "...protecting themselves from the ire of the process heads..", and that you feel this decreases the value of your Internal Audits, it becomes obvious that YOUR management is sending mixed signals about it's support of your QMS and that is YOUR managements' fault, not the auditors or the internal auditor process.

There can be no disagreement to the statement that top management should send right signals about its support and commitment to the QMS. I don't hold that the internal auditor or CA auditors are at fault. It is the environment in a company which is responsible and that is the creation of a non-commited top management.

I have seen in many opening and closing meetings, auditors talking about not associating the results of audit with the performance of a department or a person, and top management readily agreeing to it But when the auditor starts reading NCs the chief starts glaring at concerned persons.

Actually, this happend when I was first audited externally. before that I was told by my senior Internal auditos that we have to check the documents & this & that. when I was external audited that was first time I realized that the purpose of audits is not to document the sytem but to improve it.

I look at it in pretty clear terms.

If the auditor can't write a non-conformance for it, they should not be auditing it.

Carl-

I look at it in pretty clear terms.
If the auditor can't write a non-conformance for it, they should not be auditing it.Carl-

In principle your viewpoint is perfectly right, but in practice it is not followed srictly by ABs/CBs and their auditors, due to many market compulsions.

I voted YES as it is a continuation of my opinions expressed in another hot thread.
Basic question is: Why a company decides to be externally audited and certified ?. If it is only a client requirement or expectation the value of the audit is a contract (so sooner an auditor leaves a company premises the better). But if a company decides to implement ISO9001 as a tool for improvement and to increase its competitiveness it expects some added value from the external audit. There is no value from the Certificate itself (no one will pay more for your products or services only because you are ISO9001 Certified) so what is the reason to be certified and pay for the audit. As I mentioned in another thread, I have already audited more then 200 companies and it only happened once that I had a feeling (they were polite enough not to say it openly) that company people wanted me just to “confirm” and leave them asap. Usually management expects me to point out areas for improvement and if I discover weak areas they are not satisfied if I say “it is wrong”, in both cases they expect me to explain why (obviously the answer cannot be: “because in another company I audited I saw that and that, etc.”). My general opinion is that there is no future of ISO9001 certification without value added audit but the problem is that it requires value adding auditors. Maciek

Malicove,

I abslutely agree with you. An audit becomes an unproductive excercise if no value is added to the system. While establishing quality objectives for various QMS processes, I generally establish an objective for Internal Audit and Managemen Review - "At least one audit-observation / MR-Decision should result in improvement in product quality or process prformance.

Basic question is: Why a company decides to be externally audited and certified?If it is only a client requirement or expectation the value of the audit is a contract (so sooner an auditor leaves a company premises the better).You've hit the nail on the head Maciek. When quality management system assessment and certification first came out it was a recognition system for organizations with good systems. Then as its use spread people started to require registration of their suppliers. It then becomes a forced purchase like insurance and the attitude goes away from "I want it for my benefit" to "I have to have it at the cheapest cost and least hassle".
But if a company decides to implement ISO9001 as a tool for improvement and to increase its competitiveness it expects some added value from the external audit. There is no value from the Certificate itself (no one will pay more for your products or services only because you are ISO9001 Certified) so what is the reason to be certified and pay for the audit. As I mentioned in another thread, I have already audited more then 200 companies and it only happened once that I had a feeling (they were polite enough not to say it openly) that company people wanted me just to “confirm” and leave them asap. Usually management expects me to point out areas for improvement and if I discover weak areas they are not satisfied if I say “it is wrong”, in both cases they expect me to explain why (obviously the answer cannot be: “because in another company I audited I saw that and that, etc.”). My general opinion is that there is no future of ISO9001 certification without value added audit but the problem is that it requires value adding auditors. Maciek Certainly some certification bodies are recognizing this. If you only offer "hang it on the wall" assessment and certification you are in the commodity market - cheapest cost and least intrusion - and on the road to cutting corners, hiring less qualified / experienced auditors. However if you can offer a service that companies get value from (as well as an ISO 9000 (or other management system) registration) there is still an opportunity to offer this at a reasonable price.

OK,

So if you are buying a new house and the building inspector says:

"Hey, I am going to spend a few extra hours looking at your lawn because I see a lot of lawns and I noticed some brown patches on yours. I want this experience to be value added so I am going to give you some advice"

I am going to assume you guys would say:

" Gee, I am really liking this value added audit, the extra few hundred $$ is worth it!"

I'm thinking He needs to give me my certificate of occupancy and leave. If I want advice on my lawn, I'll call Lawn doctor.

I think PT Barnum was right.

Carl-

OK,

So if you are buying a new house and the building inspector says:

"Hey, I am going to spend a few extra hours looking at your lawn because I see a lot of lawns and I noticed some brown patches on yours. I want this experience to be value added so I am going to give you some advice"

I am going to assume you guys would say:

" Gee, I am really liking this value added audit, the extra few hundred $$ is worth it!"

I'm thinking He needs to give me my certificate of occupancy and leave. If I want advice on my lawn, I'll call Lawn doctor.
I personally am not too familiar with the analogy but I'll give it a go. I presume the building inspector is required to look at your house to approve construction (and hence issue the certificate)?

Differences with this type of certification and ISO are:
building cert. is (I presume) regulatory, while ISO is not (though from the tone of some posts you would think that it is).
ISO is about management systems, improvement, corrective action etc. regulations are about product standards
If the inspection had made some comments about the building design that may be closer to the analogy of an ISO auditor commenting about management systems


A lot of this stuff has been stated many times before. Why is it we never have discussions about the content but about examples on the fringes or, in this case, beyond the fringe.

OK,

So if you are buying a new house and the building inspector says:

"Hey, I am going to spend a few extra hours looking at your lawn because I see a lot of lawns and I noticed some brown patches on yours. I want this experience to be value added so I am going to give you some advice"

I am going to assume you guys would say:

" Gee, I am really liking this value added audit, the extra few hundred $$ is worth it!"

I'm thinking He needs to give me my certificate of occupancy and leave. If I want advice on my lawn, I'll call Lawn doctor.

I think PT Barnum was right.

Carl-

I still say this subject keeps getting confused. There are two different and very distinct possibilities:

An auditing firm or registrar offers "value added" service and charges extra for it, and/or the advice contributes materially to the auditee's chances of registration. This seems to be clearly proscribed by ISO Guide 62.
An auditor happens to notice something in the course of a registration or surveillance audit and he offers advice for improvement that will not affect the auditee's chances of getting registered. This seems to be clearly allowed by Guide 62, but stills seems to be objectionable to some people.
(Note: I am aware that Mr. Simpson disagrees with me on this subject. No need to continue flogging a dead horse.)

The building inspector analogy falls apart here because if an extra "few hundred $$" is being charged,( over and above what one would pay for building inspection alone) then one has to expect to get something other than building inspection in return. On the other hand, if there's no extra charge, and the building inspector says, "You know, I had that same problem with my lawn and I did x," then no harm has been done and you are free to do with the advice whatever you want.

An auditing firm or registrar offers "value added" service and charges extra for it, and/or the advice contributes materially to the auditee's chances of registration. This seems to be clearly proscribed by ISO Guide 62.
An auditor happens to notice something in the course of a registration or surveillance audit and he offers advice for improvement that will not affect the auditee's chances of getting registered. This seems to be clearly allowed by Guide 62, but stills seems to be objectionable to some people.
(Note: I am aware that Mr. Simpson disagrees with me on this subject. No need to continue flogging a dead horse.) On the contrary, we are in agreement (if that isn't a contradiction).


The building inspector analogy falls apart here because if an extra "few hundred $$" is being charged,( over and above what one would pay for building inspection alone) then one has to expect to get something other than building inspection in return. On the other hand, if there's no extra charge, and the building inspector says, "You know, I had that same problem with my lawn and I did x," then no harm has been done and you are free to do with the advice whatever you want. Again agreed. These are typically the "value added" comments that I am referring to. I always say with Observations: "That is all they are, please have a look at them, if they are not useful for you please discard them"

If I remember correctly (correct me if wrong) the original intent of ISO 9000 was improvement in business performance through following a quality management system. The possibiliy of third-party certification was thought of later. I believe that the orginal intent still dominates the list of benefits of following ISO 9001 compliant QMS.

Due to market compulsions, third-party certification might have become a necessity, but companies with a pro-active approach still put higher emphasis on business improvement. They find the latest version of ISO 9001 a very helpful tool to achieve this. They also consider and expect internal/external audits to add value to their system.

But for those companies who need a certificae only to attach with their replies to cusomer inquiries have no use for ISO 9001 for business improvement. They even do not want to discuss about it. They take (or buy) ISO 9001 certificate for entering in to negotiations with their customers. The question, whether external audits add value to their system, has no relevance in their business plans.

Actually, ISO 9000 grew from a British standard for making ammunition.

Seems during WWII they had a problem with some shells being duds, and other blowing up in an unkind way toward the user.

It was meant to STANDARDIZE processes to maintain a consistent quality level. It had nothing to do with business or profit.

Carl-

Partly right Carl.

The other problem was not enough shells (mortar shells). The focus was not so much on standardization or consistent quality but rather on saving resources. Why waste time, materials, money on subsequent manufacturing processes if a nonconformance already existed. And why deliver it to the frontline when the space it occupied could be used for a shell that actually worked. It goes without saying that duds and backfiring shells caused casualities and the enemy took the hill. And all for want of a shell.

By checking at every production step quality was assured, resources saved and we defended the hill, so to speak.

Makes you wonder. If the Brits had lost WW2 does that mean we wouldn't have ISO9001 and this forum.

Actually, ISO 9000 grew from a British standard for making ammunition.
Seems during WWII they had a problem with some shells being duds, and other blowing up in an unkind way toward the user.
It was meant to STANDARDIZE processes to maintain a consistent quality level. It had nothing to do with business or profit.
Carl-Actually , the ISO 9000 family of documents were preceded by the BS 5750 family of documents which were influenced by the NATO AQAP documents which were influenced by US Mil Standards. In the beginning, quality was managed simply as “conformance to requirements”, but it has evolved much beyond that. Nowadays, quality is perceived as part of the business management system and it is intimately connected with business performance and profitability. At least, it is ISO’s intention to make that connection. As some of us know, the 2000 version of the ISO 9000 family of documents have eight principles behind it. The first principle is customer focus. In this link (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/understand/qmp.html#Principle1) ISO states the following:

Principle 1 Customer focus

Organizations depend on their customers and therefore should understand current and future customer needs, should meet customer requirements and strive to exceed customer expectations.

Key benefits:

Increased revenue and market share obtained through flexible and fast responses to market opportunities.
Increased effectiveness in the use of the organization's resources to enhance customer satisfaction.
Improved customer loyalty leading to repeat business.
Applying the principle of customer focus typically leads to:

Researching and understanding customer needs and expectations.
Ensuring that the objectives of the organization are linked to customer needs and expectations.
Communicating customer needs and expectations throughout the organization.
Measuring customer satisfaction and acting on the results.
Systematically managing customer relationships.
Ensuring a balanced approach between satisfying customers and other interested parties (such as owners, employees, suppliers, financiers, local communities and society as a whole).

This thread and the building inspector example is starting to resemble a Fawlty Tower episode. I can picture it, John Cleese and the ISO9001 auditor.

Basil the ISO auditor is here

Ugh , what AGAIN, what does he want now

Now, be nice Basil

Denis,

The Brits would never have lost the war. It would not have been "proper".

BS 5750 was a great start to an attempt at a useful tool. In my opinion, greed kept it from becoming as useful as it could be.

Thanks to both you and Sydney for the additional info.

Carl-

I voted
Yes. An external audit has given me value above what I expected.
(if only to get this thread back on topic). :bonk:

I don't fully understand the "lawn analogy" and since I didn't know jcbodie was an auditor in a previous thread, my apologies to both.

There have been numerous audits I have experienced where an external auditor's findings, and the methods used to audit, provided a value above what I felt I could have achieved through my own research. This usually comes from the vast experience they have had with other companies and the innovative methods those companies have used in complying with a requirement.