How should an internal TS auditor audit competence? Or should they?
Thanks in advance!

I am not TS, but...Look at training and see that evals are done. Look at corrective actions and customer complaints. Do they point to people not knowing what/how to do things. What does the person himself have to say. Is he satisfied he has had the training he needs. Does he understand what he is doing and why?

Honestly, a lot of the time a person's coworkers are better qualified to judge the competence of personnel than their supervisors :notme:

Steel Maiden's take on evidence is good, I will just add to it by submitting my view than an auditor is authorized to ask if a training program's methods are sufficient to prepare or show for competence.

TS wants us to audit the process and not just check the boxes. So... it's a question of what is taught and how the accomplishsment is shown. Consider a task or process in preventive maintenance. What kind of training is done? If it's e-learning and passing a multiple choice test at the end, does the test include what a person should know to be able to function? Does the learning method prepare the trainee to function competently?

There are good reasons to not want to take on that level of detail when auditing. If you're not a training expert it is no good to critique an assessment unless it just plainly makes no sense when you review it. You do get to ask yourself if it makes sense.

Some organizations keep records of reading the procedure, and then "qual sheets" where a trainee goes through aspects of the job and a mentor or supervisor affirms satisfactory understanding to function by signing and dating as such. This is what Steel Maiden was referring to--a subject matter expert would better know competence when confronting it. We just need to be able to show that's happening.

To sum it up, an internal auditor can't necessarily directly audit competence in the absence of accidents or corrective actions, but an auditor can and should audit for evidence the organization attempts to achieve and record competence.

I hope this helps!

Recently, our TS auditors have been asking about the competency of our internal auditors whom are performing the manufacturing process audit (MPA)and product audit (PA). They are of opionion that these internal auditors must be competent and those Administration, HR, Sales, and non-production 'background" internal auditors are no longer competent to audit manufacturing & product audits. The question is - does the internal audiotr know anything about manufacturing processes and/or the product charateristics?

Recently, our TS auditors have been asking about the competency of our internal auditors whom are performing the manufacturing process audit (MPA)and product audit (PA). They are of opionion that these internal auditors must be competent and those Administration, HR, Sales, and non-production 'background" internal auditors are no longer competent to audit manufacturing & product audits. The question is - does the internal audiotr know anything about manufacturing processes and/or the product charateristics?

Most of the auditors that I have seen in my career were not competent to produce steel, but they still audited us. Being able to do the job is not a prerequisite to auditing. What is a prerequisite is that there has been training, experience, and the "right person", you know what I mean. Not every employee is cut out to be an auditor.

As far non production being able to audit production, the more they audit the more familiar with the process they become. I like to send non-production (I want you to notice I did not say non-productive) people out to the production floor because they have a whole 'nother perspective and often times can see obvious things that are missed when you are nose to the grindstone every day. I send the production people to the admin areas so they understand that it is not al just answering phones and filing you fingernails.

I have had comments from every one of my internal auditors about the value they take back to their normal job just because they have gained insight on how things work on the other side of the fence. If a registrar's auditor ever tells me that my people are not qualified just because they cannot perform the job they are auditing, I guess I'll write a nonconformance to my registrar stating the same. Fortunately, this will never happen here. Our registrar is very helpful to us, our lead auditor is more than qualified to audit us and they not only accept the way we've set up our audit schedule, they embrace it as a way for us to foster communications as well as continually improve our processes.

How should an internal TS auditor audit competence? Or should they?
Thanks in advance!

We auditors generally audit HOW your process has DETERMINED the auditors' competence. Generally, nonconformances are against the system of evaluation.

Only if I see audit records that provide objective evidence the auditors were definitely not competent, then I would write a nonconformance against auditor competency. I prefer to write findings agaist the system, not people.

From Ford Motor Company
Customer-Specific Requirements nov. 2003

Internal Auditor Qualifications Internal quality management system auditors shall be qualified per 4.39.1 or 4.39.2 below.
4.39.1 Be trained and evaluated in the following areas:

• The Technical Specification ISO/TS 16949:2002
• Related core tools (e.g. APQP, SPC, MSA, FMEA, PPAP)
• Applicable customer-specific requirements, and
• The automotive process approach to auditing. And, as part of the training, participates in practice sessions equivalent to one audit day in:
• Case study audits, and/or
• Auditing role plays/simulations, and/or

On-site audits. Core tools and customer specifics can be taught by company or industry recognized experts/specialists.
4.39.2 Or, have conducted at least 5 internal ISO/TS 16949:2002 internal audits during the prior 24 months under the supervision of an auditor trained as specified in 4.39.1 . The audits will need to have covered all requirements of the technical specification and all processes directly

Internal Auditor Trainer Qualifications

4.39.3 The training listed in 4.39.1 above shall be conducted by trainer(s) who have themselves successfully met the requirements of 4.39.1 or 4.39.2.
4.39.4 Process and Product audits may be conducted by appropriate process specialists from the affected areas without full quality management auditor training.
By

Recently, our TS auditors have been asking about the competency of our internal auditors whom are performing the manufacturing process audit (MPA)and product audit (PA). They are of opionion that these internal auditors must be competent and those Administration, HR, Sales, and non-production 'background" internal auditors are no longer competent to audit manufacturing & product audits. The question is - does the internal audiotr know anything about manufacturing processes and/or the product charateristics?


They are over-reaching. That is not a valid position. The standard does not get that specific, and neither can the auditors. They can only address it if there is objective evidence of failure.

In the past we have always send our admin. staff (internal auditors) to audit the production activities and verseversa...but now with the commenst from the TS auditors we are equally at lost... even Ford requirements mentioned that for those who audit the mfg process and product audits they are specialsit and not required to undergo QMS training. But the TS auditor insisted that for that very reason, mfg process & product audit need to be conducted by "qualified" personnel.

One of our customer who is TS 16949 certified audited us and ask how do we evaluate our auditors competence.

Our answer given to them was we do have a evaluation form to be filled in by the lead auditor each time the internal auditors had carried out the audit.

The form will be filled up by the lead auditor and verified by the management representative. If the comments given by the lead auditor is average based on the criteria in the form, them the auditor needs to carry out more audits and to be evaluated by the lead auditor. Practice makes perfection.

The customer accepted the explanation and seen the documents of evaluation.

In the past we have always send our admin. staff (internal auditors) to audit the production activities and verseversa...but now with the commenst from the TS auditors we are equally at lost... even Ford requirements mentioned that for those who audit the mfg process and product audits they are specialsit and not required to undergo QMS training. But the TS auditor insisted that for that very reason, mfg process & product audit need to be conducted by "qualified" personnel.


There is some confusion here. This clarifcation made the rules easier, not more difficult.

Fully trained, internal auditors, may do any of the internal audits. If they are trained and competent, they can do all audits.

Product audits may be also performed by people who have not been trained to as high a level as internal auditors, but they have been trained and qualified to do product audits. However, these people may not do the higher level system audits because they are not trained as internal auditors.

Remember, I am asking how do the auditors audit auditee's competence... (Is that a sentence???).

I have some internal auditors that fear that they are not able to audit competence, but I say that is our function as it is a requirement of the standard. While training records are nice, competence means that the auditees are able to perform the process correctly. How does an auditor judge competence? What I have told my auditors is that if there are errors being made, and everyone is trained, perhaps competence needs to be questioned if all other requirements are in place.

Remember, I am asking how do the auditors audit auditee's competence... (Is that a sentence???).

I have some internal auditors that fear that they are not able to audit competence, but I say that is our function as it is a requirement of the standard. While training records are nice, competence means that the auditees are able to perform the process correctly. How does an auditor judge competence? What I have told my auditors is that if there are errors being made, and everyone is trained, perhaps competence needs to be questioned if all other requirements are in place.

Anything that is auditable has to be clearly defined. If you've done this for "competence," then in most cases reasonably adept auditors should be able to compare the process to the requirements. The best way to look at competence in this regard is in determining whether operators (the people who guide processes) are operating the process as it was designed to operate. If the process is arcane and technical, then advanced knowledge on the part of auditors will probably be required, but otherwise, it's usually just a matter of making sure everyone knows what "competent" means.

You could review this thread even though it was addressing ISO9001:2000 to get some information:

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=18109

Remember, I am asking how do the auditors audit auditee's competence... (Is that a sentence???).

I have some internal auditors that fear that they are not able to audit competence, but I say that is our function as it is a requirement of the standard. While training records are nice, competence means that the auditees are able to perform the process correctly. How does an auditor judge competence? What I have told my auditors is that if there are errors being made, and everyone is trained, perhaps competence needs to be questioned if all other requirements are in place.


Yes, they are required to assess competence.

And yes, your approach is good. If there is evidence people do not know how to perform their functions, you would write a nonconformance. If the records do not demonstarte competency has been determined, then write a nc against the system of determining competence.

In the past we have always send our admin. staff (internal auditors) to audit the production activities and verseversa...but now with the commenst from the TS auditors we are equally at lost... even Ford requirements mentioned that for those who audit the mfg process and product audits they are specialsit and not required to undergo QMS training. But the TS auditor insisted that for that very reason, mfg process & product audit need to be conducted by "qualified" personnel.

If fact, this is the result of a common mis-interpretation of the word 'independent'. It's almost no use to have an auditor evaluating a process of which they have no experience. Sure, people say it's a 'learning opportunity', but then how effective was the audit??

It's not just TS audits which require competency. Yes, your auditor was overstepping the mark. As 'H' says, look for a bad audit result, but then you've got to know what that is ;) So, one way or another you've got to consider an auditors competence........:yes:

Andy

Yes, they are required to assess competence.Not really. They (the internal auditors) are required to assess if the system has provisions/processes in place to ensure that personnel are competent. There is a huge difference between the two. If internal auditors start assessing individuals competence, they become "cops" and that is not the intent of internal audits.

Not really. They (the internal auditors) are required to assess if the system has provisions/processes in place to ensure that personnel are competent. There is a huge difference between the two. If internal auditors start assessing individuals competence, they become "cops" and that is not the intent of internal audits.


No, I'm not sure if you got the gist of my comment.

I agree, they are assessing the process, and auditing if it is being done. And, also auditing if it is working. However, if they see objective evidence of an individual who clearly is evidencing lack of understanding of what he is supposed to be doing (as my client did just about an hour ago), they would flag that as well, wouldn't they?

I think the original question came from a TS organization, so they would also evaluate effectiveness in practice.

They should not miss the forest for the trees, but certainly should audit from the process up, not from the operator.