Folk, greetings from Italy.

Someone of you have please some example of the "plan of an internal Audit"?
I'm arguing with the external consultant:bonk: about the format to be used for planning the internal audit.( the format reporting the processes to be audited, the ISO/TS paragraphs involved and the time planning)
I would like to add , together with the processes to be audited, also the names of the responsibles of the other functions involved ( AQ, COMM and other if requested). The Consultant is against this idea ( the process owner is sufficient he said) and I'm not convinced on the matter.

Ciao and thank you

Folk, greetings from Italy.

Someone of you have please some example of the "plan of an internal Audit"?
I'm arguing with the external consultant:bonk: about the format to be used for planning the internal audit.( the format reporting the processes to be audited, the ISO/TS paragraphs involved and the time planning)
I would like to add , together with the processes to be audited, also the names of the responsibles of the other functions involved ( AQ, COMM and other if requested). The Consultant is against this idea ( the process owner is sufficient he said) and I'm not convinced on the matter.

Ciao and thank you

Ciao Daniele!:bigwave: Welcome to the Cove!

I don't even put the process owner on my schedule, so basically, I guesss we could say that your schedule should fit your requirements. If you want the additional information, and it helps you, there is no reason you can't put it on there. The system is yours, it should work for you.

But, remember, as with all other things, the more detail you document, the more chances that an auditor has to find a nonconformance. I am by no means trying to advocate subterfuge, but you should have your process and interactions outlined anyway, so why duplicate the information and take the chance of missing something when and if you make a change? just my :2cents:

Hi and welcome.

As SteelMaiden says, whatever works for you. That's the bottom line.

Personally, when doing internal audits I like to put a "Key Auditees" column on the agenda. These are the people that I expect to meet with to start that portion of the audit. Once that portion of the audit starts, they are free to delegate as needed.

If I was to do a supplier audit - I would not put that column as it's up to the organization I'm auditing to set me up with the right people at the right time.


(on a side note...
It seems that a lot of people here spend a lot of time arguing with their consultants...hmmmm.)

My audit plan has only:
1. title
2. running numbers
3. names of the audited proceses
4. dates of the adits
5. assigned auditor(s) (that makes it handy to demonstrate that the auditors are not auditing their own work)
6. sigature of the Internal Auditors' Team Leader
7. number and revision of the controlled form

Responsibility for the processes I have defined in Quality Manual in form of the "process sheets".

I believe that in a documented QMS each thing shall be written once only, that to ease on updates and to prevent assosiated mistakes; so I don't have these responsibilities assigned aniwhere else.

Also I don't see any formal restrictions for having the "process ownership" (and other useful information) handy right on an internal quality audits' schedule.:rolleyes:

...


I believe that in a documented QMS each thing shall be written once only, that to ease on updates and to prevent assosiated mistakes; so I don't have these responsibilities assigned aniwhere else.

Also I don't see any formal restrictions for having the "process ownership" (and other useful information) handy right on an internal quality audits' schedule.:rolleyes:


Brilliant points - both of them!

Folk, greetings from Italy.

Someone of you have please some example of the "plan of an internal Audit"?
I'm arguing with the external consultant:bonk: about the format to be used for planning the internal audit.( the format reporting the processes to be audited, the ISO/TS paragraphs involved and the time planning)
I would like to add , together with the processes to be audited, also the names of the responsibles of the other functions involved ( AQ, COMM and other if requested). The Consultant is against this idea ( the process owner is sufficient he said) and I'm not convinced on the matter.

Ciao and thank you

Obviously, if you want to add it, then you don't agree the "process owner is suffcient." It is your system, Do it as you wish.