During the 1st day of our iso cert audit the auditor wrote up a minor for a weak process map for lack of inputs/outputs. This is my first go at being part of a certification process but worked under qs for many years and admit it is weak. What I am wondering is why were we not given a minor on this during the document audit (off site) during that portion of the audit ? When I asked the auditor this she said they do not go that far into the documents during that part of it :confused:

During the 1st day of our iso cert audit the auditor wrote up a minor for a weak process map for lack of inputs/outputs. This is my first go at being part of a certification process but worked under qs for many years and admit it is weak. What I am wondering is why were we not given a minor on this during the document audit (off site) during that portion of the audit ? When I asked the auditor this she said they do not go that far into the documents during that part of it :confused:


Hello, there! I'm wondering if you might have typed a wrong word somewhere.. Did you get a MAJOR, but thought it should be a MINOR?

Here's my frail line of thinking... If the process map is weak, then maybe the associated procedures might be weak. Certain areas not addressed correctly, others not covered at all, etc.

However... my line of thinking is irrelevant. There should be clear evidence cited by the auditor why this creates significant risk, deficiencies, ineffective system, etc. in your process. Was there any verbiage to the effect?

Interesting... there's another thread going right now regarding process maps:

Examples of process mapping (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=21323)

Don't know if it would be of any interest to you.

During the 1st day of our iso cert audit the auditor wrote up a minor for a weak process map for lack of inputs/outputs. This is my first go at being part of a certification process but worked under qs for many years and admit it is weak. What I am wondering is why were we not given a minor on this during the document audit (off site) during that portion of the audit ? When I asked the auditor this she said they do not go that far into the documents during that part of it :confused:

Hard to say without seeing the docs and knowing the background, but a documentation review is usually just intended to establish whether there is a documented system that appears capable of being audited. It's a lot to ask someone to also establish how valid or robust the processes are as well - iot's usually only when they see the actual system itself that they can see. I've had doc reviews come back with an auditor say it looks weak, then change their mind at the actual audit.

Hmm, I think it is a bit unsatisfactory if the auditor at doc review looked at the process map and did not comment at the time. After all, you are paying for him/her to comment on the suitability of the documented system to meet the requirements of the standard.

I do agree with Jane, it is not really possible to tell how suitable the process map will be in practice but that is not what I understand you to be saying here.

She did say it will be wrote up as a minor because there is no clear link ( on the PM) between processes. Unfortunetly we were forced by the powers to be to do a rush job of switching our QS system to ISO and it shows in some areas. I do agree with her that it's weak and will not contest the minor but as Colpart said I find it unsatisfactory that it was not even mentioned during the doc audit.The links are there and I would have had time to make the changes.

QCman:

I believe that the emphasis of the Stage 1 (since we're talking 'TS' here) is a 'readiness' review, to determine if the organization has a system in place, has been operating it getting some sort of results and the scope is correct - yada, yada......more registrar preparation (aka 'CYA') than a robust review of documentation.

I'm therefore not surprised that someone will comment later on simple stuff like this. It's frustrating because the whole idea of the 'automotive approach' is to ensure consistency......:frust:

Of course, there will always be personal bias (oops, preferences) of auditors, and it seems like this is one of hers!

Unlikely scenario I know but what would happen if the auditor missed something significant at doc review and then found that it caused a Major during the certification audit? It would reflect very badly on the auditor and presumably, an appeal could be made by the organisation.

Getting a major out of this is the first thing I though when she brought it up. I can't help but feel it should have been pointed out when they pointed out an inadequate statement for exclusion from design. Today was day 2 and so far have 4 minors, 2 of which I do not agree with but will be much easier to fix than fight.

Couldnt you only determine the adequacy of process definition for a company during a site visit where you see the actual processes ?

The only thing you could determine at an off site document review is that the company has defined its processes, i.e. there is something alluding to what the companies processes are. However only at site can you say whether or not this process definition is adequate.

I would agree with that but she said she was going to write it up in the first 1/2 hour of the opening meeting,well before she saw any process. Anyway cert audit ended today with a total of 4 minors and both giving recommendations for certification :D We switched our QS system to ISO9001 in a short 4 months and I want to say :thanx: to all cover's for the knowledge posted here which helped get us to this point.

:applause: Well done on the successful certification.

Someone needs to fix the double negative in the thread title. It's making my pedantic head hurt.

I have changed the title. Jim, I hope the damage is not permanent!:lol:

I have changed the title. Jim, I hope the damage is not permanent!:lol:

Hate to raise this, but while Jim's head may be fine, removing one negative has changed the meaning, so that the title doesn't now accurately reflect the OP's complaint. :)

Whatever happened to two negatives = positive (which is what was intended)?

Unlikely scenario I know but what would happen if the auditor missed something significant at doc review and then found that it caused a Major during the certification audit? It would reflect very badly on the auditor and presumably, an appeal could be made by the organisation.

Doubt it. If you read the fine print carefully on the doc review report (and any external report for that matter), you'll find that there is a disclaimer of some kind that in essence says 'did it carefully, but our findings may not be accurate'.

You're right Jane - not good PR though is it? I try to impress on students that I train to do as good a job of doc review as possible so it helps both parties. I usually find that a good doc review leads to an easier audit.

Hate to raise this, but while Jim's head may be fine, removing one negative has changed the meaning, so that the title doesn't now accurately reflect the OP's complaint. :)

Whatever happened to two negatives = positive (which is what was intended)?

Jane, you're absolutely correct--I should have been paying more attention. :o

Perhaps a better thread title would be, "Should process maps have been identified as inadequate in document review?"

QCman:

I believe that the emphasis of the Stage 1 (since we're talking 'TS' here) is a 'readiness' review, to determine if the organization has a system in place, has been operating it getting some sort of results and the scope is correct - yada, yada......more registrar preparation (aka 'CYA') than a robust review of documentation.

I'm therefore not surprised that someone will comment later on simple stuff like this. It's frustrating because the whole idea of the 'automotive approach' is to ensure consistency......:frust:

Of course, there will always be personal bias (oops, preferences) of auditors, and it seems like this is one of hers!


Where in the "Rules for Achieving IATF Recognition" does it state that the Stage 1 audit (Readiness review) is conducted for the purposes of CYA?

not good PR though is it? I try to impress on students that I train to do as good a job of doc review as possible so it helps both parties. I usually find that a good doc review leads to an easier audit.

Very true. I disagree with AndyNabout it being a 'CYA' exercise. Yes, of course the certifier is going to have a disclaimer about the limit of the services. So do the biggest public financial auditors in the world! Given the litigious state of the world, certifiers would be seriously derelict in their duty to their own owners/shareholders if they didn't.

Of perhaps 100+ doc reviews, I've only experienced 1 -2 that I was less than impressed with. Good auditors (note, qualification of 'good') I've observed doc reviews with all approached them with clear intent: is this a documented system? does it appear to meet all the requirements of the Standard insofar as I can judge at this point? Are there any obvious gaps or shortfalls? (so yes, if the process maps were considered so inadequate that they were raised in the 1st 30 mins of the audit itself, I'd be peeved too)

Plus it gives the auditor some essential information on the organisation they're going to assess, and do some preliminary planning for the audit itself.

One of THE worst audits I've ever observed was 2 auditors attempting to do a certification audit in a single day, with no doc review beforehand - they seemed to expect to do it in perhaps 15 mins at the beginning, but totally failed to get to grips with the system documentation. The audit was one of the most incompetent, unprofessional and thoroughly dreadful ones I've ever witnessed. But that's pretty rare.

QCman:

I believe that the emphasis of the Stage 1 (since we're talking 'TS' here) is a 'readiness' review, to determine if the organization has a system in place, has been operating it getting some sort of results and the scope is correct - yada, yada......more registrar preparation (aka 'CYA') than a robust review of documentation.

I'm therefore not surprised that someone will comment later on simple stuff like this. It's frustrating because the whole idea of the 'automotive approach' is to ensure consistency......:frust:

Of course, there will always be personal bias (oops, preferences) of auditors, and it seems like this is one of hers!

Andy, I'm no sure I follow your intent here. I never think of a Stage 1 a CYA, when I do them. It is a prep phase, to see if everything appears ready.

Also, we don't look at everything, only specific defined things. So, it is possible to miss things which could be found at the Stage 2 market. It could be embarassing, but a Stage 1 is not a guarantee. Otherwise, the Stage 2 would not be needed. Stage 1 is only a "readiness" review. Are, the basic fundamental things in place to allow us to move forward to the "real" audit, the Stage 2.