I was recently given the responsiblity of heading up our auditing division because our QM did not like the training results he was getting from our outside ISO training representatives. So I assembled a team to go do an audit on one of our departements. Their scope was to audit the departments on our QM and compliance with it. But when they returned with their audit results they had NC like: Superglue being used that is past expiration date 03/07. Screw, tools and tech manuals left unattended on work bench, machinist box left open and unattended. (although the machinist was in the general area). Production inspector signed in wrong block of inspection form. ( told MY inspector that this could be a documentaton NC but he insisted it was a training NC). Since this was my audit as "being responsible" I really didnt want to cause to many waves with my internal auditors. What should I do, any advise the pro's here would be a great help. Thanks in advance.

Go back to the basics...were their findings able to achieve the Objectives of the audit and within the defined Scope and in accordance with the stipulated Criteria? If not then maybe the Objectives, Scope and Criteria were ill defined and your auditors have not been trained to actually audit the system.

To have a NC you must have:

1. a requirement
2. evidence of non-fulfillment of the requirement

The evidence must be:

1. verifiable
2. relevant to the criteria of the audit
3. relevant to the objectives of the audit
4. within the scope of the audit

Sounds to me like they inspected things and not processes.

Randy's assessment seems about correct, sounds like they were inspecting things rather than performing a valid process audit. What criteria were they auditing against that they felt inclined to write up expired superglue, is the glue used on product, does this effect product quality?

Perhaps you could go in, do a sampling yourself and relay your findings to them as an example of what you want them to look at. As Randy stated your objectives and scope should be well defined before they initiate an audit. They should be interviewing employees and monitoring processes rather than just inspecting items.

If your audit team is not functioning properly, as it would seem you're suggesting, then you should review their training and work with them to get your internal audits back on track.

Honestly if an audit member came up to me with expired superglue I'd probably break out in laughter, and then I'd ask:

What is this used for?
Does it affect product quality?
Is it a necessary supply?
Do we have MSDS sheets for this?
If it does effect product quality:
Why weren't we controlling the material?
Is it stored in appropriate conditions?
Do we maintain an appropriate level of stock?

The point is, your auditors shouldn't just be looking at items, they should be asking questions which are pertinent to your organization. Sounds to me that they need basic auditor training.

You are not off base, those findings are an indication of some deep rooted inadequacies with the auditors, somewhere............:rolleyes:

So, I'd suggest the following:-

Before you do another audit, I'd set each individual an audit 'assignment' and then ask them to prepare as if they were going to do the audit. Give them a clear objectives, audit criteria and scope (as Randy was discussing) and then have the auditor pull together the various information they need to create a checklist.

Review this with them, and have them give a verbal description of what they would be going to 'look for' and 'look at' during their audit and why they want to choose that evidence etc. If the audit isn't focused on the appropriate thing you can try to adjust this focus or exclude them from auditing.

Try to select an auditor who has knowledge of the process, of course, otherwise you're setting yourself up for failure anyway......

This will help to avoid any embarrassment again.

(I have used this technique when I was a supervisor for a registrar)

Perhaps you could go in, do a sampling yourself and relay your findings to them as an example of what you want them to look at.

Sounds to me that they need basic auditor training.

I agree - show them how to do it. Sounds like they have not been properly introduced to "process auditing".

can you take them on some mini audits and go with them (one or two at a time) to show them what they should be looking for?

can you take them on some mini audits and go with them (one or two at a time) to show them what they should be looking for?

That would be my plan. You can train and talk all day, but until a person sees it in action they won't "get it"

We had the "ISO Coordinator" for another plant in during our certification audit, and after the audit was over he stated that aparently he had never seen a real audit before. :bonk:

Being there is the best learning experience.

MsHeeler

I doubt there is any problem with the auditors (the people.) Since we are experts at the Process Approach, and we all understand and agree that most problems are due to process issues, then I think a review of the auditing process and the process to provide awareness, competency and training is in order.

I would absolutely NOT work on the people. I would Check the processes, Act upon any perceived deficiencies, Plan again, and then Do another controlled audit (PDCA.)

If the concentration is on the people and not the tools (processes - method, material, machines, measurement, and environment) provided, then we are not looking at this from a process or system perspective. If the approach is to fix the people, then you have lost the essence of ISO 9001 and / or a process approach.

Regards,

Dirk

By the way, my direct answer to the following question is, "Neither."

Q. Who's off track, me or my internal auditors?
A. Neither. The processes / tools and resources provided are off track.

Regards,

Dirk

Very good point Dirk, I absolutely agree, however, we all know that auditing no matter how detailed you make a process, is heavily dependant on the skills of the auditor. If you over detail an audit procedure you'll end up constricting your auditors' actions. With that in mind I would still suggest that training of the auditors is quite valid. Looking at the audit process to identify where to improve it should be performed in conjunction with the training.

Hello Benjamin28:

Here is the second sentence of my first posting:

"Since we are experts at the Process Approach, and we all understand and agree that most problems are due to process issues, then I think a review of the auditing process and the process to provide awareness, competency and training is in order."

I also am making the recommendation that awareness, competency and training be reviewed. You and I are suggesting ALMOST the same thing. However, I am distinguishing "people" from "training, competency and awareness." Training, competency and awarenss is the result of what is provided to the people. Again, look at the process to provide skills to the people, not the people themselves.

If you are talking about talent, which is not teachable, then that is a different issue. A doctor can be taught all of the medicine in the world, but bedside manners are part of talent. They cannot be taught. Same thing with artisit. We can teach all of the painting skills in the world but there is still an element of talent.

Regards,

Dirk

We are indeed thinking along the same lines Dirk. I don't think I was quite clear in my post, perhaps I could have chosen a better word than training...mentoring & guidance perhaps? Which absolutely could fall within the scope of your "awareness, compentency, and training" process.

The idea I was attempting to express is that a less experienced auditor will typically not be as good as an experienced one even when both recieve equal training...and therefore -(mentoring & guidance) should be utilized.

This reminds me of a story....I may butcher it a bit

This old dude had a dog that he normally kept in the house. One day he came home from work (the old dude, not the dog) and found the dog had wet on the floor. He summarily stuck his nose in the puddle (the dog's nose not the dude's), kicked the dog in the behind and tossed him out the door. This went on for days and days, wet, get kicked and tossed out the door. One afternoon while enjoying TV (the dude, not the dog) the dog wet the floor. The dude jumped up, but before he could move the dog stuck his nose in the puddle, backed into the dudes foot and jumped through the door screen.

The object was to get the dog to stop wetting on the floor, but the dog did only what he was taught to do.

Are you standing in a puddle of pee?