I am struggling with a written process that appears to be ineffective as evidenced by multiple interpretations. I cannot document a non conformance (other than the lack of effectiveness for the multiple interpretations) but my gut feel is that there is a nc here. My question is, "What clause would be referenced?". The counter argument is that since there are no non conformities, it must be effective.

Now I'm confused.:confused:

If you are auditing, your interpretation should lead to the finding (is there evidence for what's in the procedure?).

What area/process is this, and where is the different intrepretations coming into play?

They're either doing what's written in the procedure, or they're not.

I am struggling with a written process that appears to be ineffective as evidenced by multiple interpretations. I cannot document a non conformance (other than the lack of effectiveness for the multiple interpretations) but my gut feel is that there is a nc here. My question is, "What clause would be referenced?". The counter argument is that since there are no non conformities, it must be effective.
I, for one, need more detail to make a meaningful comment. How about an example to show us how it might get more than one interpretation?

Are the same tools being used? Are all requirements of the method satisfied? Is the end result the same?

It sounds to me that what you've found is not a nonconformance but an opportunity for improvement by standardizing your procedure so that the method of application is consistent and variabililty is taken out of the equation.

Give more details as we cannot conclude with the information you have posted. What are the intepretations? This will enable us see it in a better way.

I think what the poster is saying is that they have created some process diagrams however when different people read them they interpret them differently.

This is a problem with process diagrams (maps, flowcharts, etc) in that they tend to largely only make clear sense to the author, or the team involved in their creation, this is largely due to the fact that these diagrams tend to be quite abstract, with no real conventions of grammar or syntax that you would get if you simply wrote down in words what you processes were. We all understand words, punctuation and grammer (to varying degrees admittedly) however can generally read the same document and get the same understanding (ISO9001 excluded - ha just a joke I think !), but pictures are another matter.

What I try to do is stick, albeit rather loosely, to IDEF0 conventions when process mapping, and try to make them all look the same, e.g. run from right to left, top to bottom, etc.

As to the actual question it would only be a problem if the users interpretations lead them to do things differently that resulted in the incorrect output of the process, or lets say missed a vital regulatory element or control point in the process. The nonconformity would then be raised on the resultant problem of varying interpretation, such as missed off widget X, root cause may indicate the process document is ambiguous, and corrective action would be to improve the process definition, or better still fool proof the process itself.

I think what the poster is saying is that they have created some process diagrams however when different people read them they interpret them differently.

This is a problem with process diagrams (maps, flowcharts, etc) in that they tend to largely only make clear sense to the author, or the team involved in their creation, this is largely due to the fact that these diagrams tend to be quite abstract, with no real conventions of grammar or syntax that you would get if you simply wrote down in words what you processes were. We all understand words, punctuation and grammer (to varying degrees admittedly) however can generally read the same document and get the same understanding (ISO9001 excluded - ha just a joke I think !), but pictures are another matter.

What I try to do is stick, albeit rather loosely, to IDEF0 conventions when process mapping, and try to make them all look the same, e.g. run from right to left, top to bottom, etc.

As to the actual question it would only be a problem if the users interpretations lead them to do things differently that resulted in the incorrect output of the process, or lets say missed a vital regulatory element or control point in the process. The nonconformity would then be raised on the resultant problem of varying interpretation, such as missed off widget X, root cause may indicate the process document is ambiguous, and corrective action would be to improve the process definition, or better still fool proof the process itself. I agree. :applause:

If a process is not accurately or adequately being represented in its directive, or is not being followed because the directive (procedure, process spec, etc) is unclear, too wordy or technical, and so on, it's not a trivial matter. A NC should be made to more closely align the directive to the process. If needed, the process owner should get the audit team's help or guidance into how an effective directive would look.

A number of causes could be afoot, among them:

1. Directive is written in engineer-speak and is needs interpretation by its users.

2. Reading comprehension skills varies in the users, for solvable reasons or due to learning disabilities or language processing disorders like dyslexia.

3. The directive is too dense for on-station practical use.

4. Personnel do not engage the discipline to use the directive.

Each of these examples would need different approaches to solve the problem, which (I can't tell from here) is either the process document does not match the process, or the document is just inappropriate for the need.

I am struggling with a written process that appears to be ineffective as evidenced by multiple interpretations. I cannot document a non conformance (other than the lack of effectiveness for the multiple interpretations) but my gut feel is that there is a nc here. My question is, "What clause would be referenced?". The counter argument is that since there are no non conformities, it must be effective.

If there's no way to rewrite the document to remove ambiguity, you can provide what ISO calls a "sanctioned" interpretation. In other words, if there are multiple interpretations, and only one of them is "correct," you can list the "incorrect" interpretations and explicitly describe them as incorrect (along with the accepted interpretation, of course.

There will always be nitpickers who will attempt to apply their own interpretations regardless of having been told that they are wrong, and regardless of how explicit and clear the documentation is. Those people should be dealt with individually, and documentation shouldn't be changed to account for spurious or self-serving interpretations.

Added in edit: You can also do training. :D

I think the question was more to do with what is the effect of multiple interpretations. If you can see it leads to increased process output variation lets say, then hang your issue on that, i.e. increased process variation.

Simple, I think, or maye its just me.....

I think the question was more to do with what is the effect of multiple interpretations.

You mean there might be multiple interpretations of a question regarding multiple interpretations? :cool: :biglaugh:

The counter argument is that since there are no non conformities, it must be effective.

I question that counter argument. A lack of nonconformity does not necessarily guarantee an effective process...it merely indicates it. A process can have a nonconformity and still be effective.

If there's no way to rewrite the document to remove ambiguity, you can provide what ISO calls a "sanctioned" interpretation. In other words, if there are multiple interpretations, and only one of them is "correct," you can list the "incorrect" interpretations and explicitly describe them as incorrect (along with the accepted interpretation, of course.

That is a good idea. Just curious though...where does ISO mention the ability to have "sanctioned" interpretations?

That is a good idea. Just curious though...where does ISO mention the ability to have "sanctioned" interpretations?

ISO 9001:2000 Sanctioned Interpretations (http://www.tc176.org/Interpre.asp)

If there's no way to rewrite the document to remove ambiguity, you can provide what ISO calls a "sanctioned" interpretation. In other words, if there are multiple interpretations, and only one of them is "correct," you can list the "incorrect" interpretations and explicitly describe them as incorrect (along with the accepted interpretation, of course.

There will always be nitpickers who will attempt to apply their own interpretations regardless of having been told that they are wrong, and regardless of how explicit and clear the documentation is. Those people should be dealt with individually, and documentation shouldn't be changed to account for spurious or self-serving interpretations.

Added in edit: You can also do training. :D Great input. :applause: The process document actually shouldn't need interpretations.

I think the question was more to do with what is the effect of multiple interpretations. If you can see it leads to increased process output variation lets say, then hang your issue on that, i.e. increased process variation. That is ideal--if you can list examples of how "process creep" has resulted from interpretations or simply not following the process, then that evidence is all you should need to show action is required.

ISO 9001:2000 Sanctioned Interpretations (http://www.tc176.org/Interpre.asp)

Excellent....thank you!

The counter argument is that since there are no non conformities, it must be effective.

This comment caught my attention immediately. Do not confuse conformity with effectiveness. I can walk to the water cooler 1/4 of a mile from my desk and I conform to the requirement of getting a glass of water, but it is not effective at all when there are 4 coolers closer than that, one only 40 steps away.

I am not sure if you are auditing, or if you are implementing (I'll go with auditing) but, if there are multiple interpretations of a document, there is a nonconformance. It is either in training, the process, or the documentation itself. (or any combination)

This comment caught my attention immediately. Do not confuse conformity with effectiveness. I can walk to the water cooler 1/4 of a mile from my desk and I conform to the requirement of getting a glass of water, but it is not effective at all when there are 4 coolers closer than that, one only 40 steps away.


This is precisely where the espousement of effectiveness AND efficiency are critical.

Besides, by the time you walk back your 1/4 mile you need another glass of water! :D

My question is, "What clause would be referenced?".If you are just trying to "find a home" for this NC, there are a number of possibilities:

4.1 General requirements

The organization shall establish, document, implement and maintain a quality management system and continually improve its effectiveness in accordance with the requirements of this International Standard.
The organization shall:

c) determine criteria and methods needed to ensure that both the operation and control of these processes are effective,

f) implement actions necessary to achieve planned results and continual improvement of these processes.


You can also write against:



4.2.1 General



The quality management system documentation shall include


d) documents needed by the organization to ensure the effective planning, operation and control of its processes, and



But that is secondary to all the good advice you already received.

First of all, thanks to all of you for your time and input.
I think M Greenaway most closely described the situation (which is amazing in itself, given the sparse information that was presented). The process is entitled "Warehousing" but actually describes a process of order preparation for shipment. Within the QMS, processes are divided that describe the physical movements of materials and there are lacking, as an example, description of where specific materials are to be stored. Further reading and re-reading lead me to believe that the process is inappropriately titled and the manner in which it is written and the language used further adds to the misunderstandings and misinterpretations. An excerpt: "The warehouse process deals specifically with picking, preparing, checking, and staging customer orders and the preservation of product within the warehouse.

Internal Movement of Materials and Product
Transfer and internal movement of packaging materials, raw materials, other required materials, intermediate product, and finished product from one location to another within the facility is performed by qualified forklift / powered industrial truck operators. Qualified forklift / powered industrial truck operators are defined as personnel who have successfully completed forklift / powered industrial truck training and have a current license; however, these functions are not part of the Warehouse or Receiving process.

WI-XX, Order Preparation - Warehouse Personnel, describes the process for picking, preparing and staging customer orders.

PRO-XX, Preservation of Product, describes the process to preserve the conformity of product during internal processing and delivery to the intended destination.

Order preparation is accomplished by warehouse personnel who are defined as individuals having received training on warehouse procedures and order preparation. DOC-XX, Job Description: Warehouse, describes job position, duties and competence / qualification requirements for the job."

Should I suggest that this is an opportunity for improvement (to re-write the process description including the title) or is it a non-conformity and if so, what clause is violated?

This comment caught my attention immediately. Do not confuse conformity with effectiveness. I can walk to the water cooler 1/4 of a mile from my desk and I conform to the requirement of getting a glass of water, but it is not effective at all when there are 4 coolers closer than that, one only 40 steps away.

I am not sure if you are auditing, or if you are implementing (I'll go with auditing) but, if there are multiple interpretations of a document, there is a nonconformance. It is either in training, the process, or the documentation itself. (or any combination)
I agree with Steel Maiden. I think most of the contributors to this thread are saying, in effect, ultimately you need to know the root cause of the multiple interpretations. Misinterpretation is definitely one of the symptoms (which may also include non-conforming products or service) of any or all of the following:

faulty document writing,
faulty process creation,
faulty training,
faulty hiring [are employees incompetent to interpret a document or process?]
some other, undiscovered error.:topic:I can walk to the water cooler 1/4 of a mile from my desk and I conform to the requirement of getting a glass of water, but it is not effective at all when there are 4 coolers closer than that, one only 40 steps away. Effective for what? One guy in my office would have walked to a cooler a mile away if it kept him away from his boring desk job that much longer. Maybe the extra time away made him more effective when he got back to his desk.;)

I, on the other hand, always took the long way through our manufacturing facility or office to get from one spot to another, because it gave me the opportunity to get in "face time" and do some "management by walking around" en route.

ME,

Is this situation a symptom of a more fundamental problem?

Just curious.

CliffK,
Unfortunately, probably so.
The issues related to this post resulted from an internal audit in which the 'process owner' argued against the nc using the explanation /logic that the auditor "didn't understand the process". Now, if the trained and papered internal auditor couldn't understand the process and evidence was offered and documented during the audit from interviews and observations made during the audit that floor workers didn't understand the process, then it's very likely that the process is ineffective.
We're probably facing re-writing most all of our documents to simply the system and get away from the "ISO Speak Techno Jargon" which is more similar to Code of Federal Regulation sort of construction. Keep in mind that the entire company is 20 people.
Should we torch it and start over?

Thanks for your post and consideration (and curiosity). In fact, thanks to all the group who've been most helpful!

First of all, thanks to all of you for your time and input.
I think M Greenaway most closely described the situation (which is amazing in itself, given the sparse information that was presented).
:topic:
This is why one should leave the Quality discussions up to the Cove. Please do not try this at home. :lmao:


Should I suggest that this is an opportunity for improvement (to re-write the process description including the title) or is it a non-conformity and if so, what clause is violated?

OK, back on topic.

I have been around construction my whole life. I always thought it was silly to pay someone to tape/bed sheetrock in a house. Until my dad decided to tape/bed his new house, and I helped him. Anyone who thinks auditing is easy has never done it.

Wes's approach is a good one, IMO.

I guess I might have this thought process..

OK, so the process mapping is not that good. Can I identify risk in this? Do people really follow the process mapping, or is it an organization tool? In the end, how much does this weaken the system?

Without going on a Witch Hunt, I would observe if there are some real quality problems occuring due to these misinterpretations. The evidence should reflect somewhat clearly (IMO) to you how important this confusion really plays in the system.

CliffK,
Unfortunately, probably so.
The issues related to this post resulted from an internal audit in which the 'process owner' argued against the nc using the explanation /logic that the auditor "didn't understand the process". Now, if the trained and papered internal auditor couldn't understand the process and evidence was offered and documented during the audit from interviews and observations made during the audit that floor workers didn't understand the process, then it's very likely that the process is ineffective.
We're probably facing re-writing most all of our documents to simply the system and get away from the "ISO Speak Techno Jargon" which is more similar to Code of Federal Regulation sort of construction. Keep in mind that the entire company is 20 people.
Should we torch it and start over?



My previous post was going in at the same time as your last one.

Ok, given your follow-up, here's my Rev 1 thought process. Do the floor workers not understand the process map, or not understand the process? To me, there is a difference.

Set aside the process map for a second. I guess I am trying to determine how this place runs. Do they make good product? Are they following their written guidelines/procedures? Is the organization striving towards improving their quality system?

The extent of the revision is up to you. If they have a good system in place, the process map may do good to mimic what is already working, as opposed to some theoretical model out of a book. Or, a new process will improve this situation. Regardless, management should be on board for this venture.

Quality systems are about making good product and increasing profit. How you think this process map situation would work towards that end is the best solution.

You ask good questions.



The folks who are charged with execution, on the floor, are bright and intelligent people who understand the process. If you ask 3 of them for an interpretation of the written documentation, you will get feedback that suggests confusion and some sheepish looks.



Quality, as evidenced by any measurement, is very, very good and here's where it begins to get frustrating. It's arguable that the written guidelines and procedures are followed provided one takes into consideration that there can be a wide variety of 'understandings'. If you know what's supposed to happen, you go forth and execute and conviently ignore the instructions. Part of the problem could be that we've written what we thought the auditor wanted rather than writing what we actually do in any activity / procedure.
Thanks for the input.

Having been credited with understanding the initial question further posts from METerry make me think that this is a different issue than multiple interpretation, it is more to do with poor process definition.

For a start I would say that warehousing is not a process, that might be where the problem lies. The warehouse as a department gets involved in numerous processes, the obvious ones which spring to mind would be receiving goods into stores, and possibly despatch of goods. METerry actually details these processes in his post as being within the warehousing process - I would maitain that warehousing is not a process, it is a name you have given to a collection or grouping of processes.

A good test of the effectiveness of your documented QMS would be to ask the people doing the work where their documented instruction is - if they struggle to find it you could argue that the procedures are not 'readily retrievable'. But it is always stronger an audit finding to discover someone not actually doing something that they should which directly affects the product.

Here is a test for you (and our system):
You are correct in that the piece at which we are looking is entitled "Warehousing". In actuality, the process involves picking, and pulling finished goods for labeling, stretch wrapping and staging prior to shipment. It involves neither operations before or after. Does this surprise you? It's been argued that this is problematic as the process is not what most people would have normally assumed (based on its title) and that we could have well named the process anything ("spaghetti" was suggested).
I don't know that the original audit asked where the instruction could be found (or what it was named). Maybe another test?
It's clear we need some refinement of our thinking and as painful and tedious as it may be, this is, in effect, what will be required in order to create the order and organization we need to make the system viable and valuable.

It's arguable that the written guidelines and procedures are followed provided one takes into consideration that there can be a wide variety of 'understandings'. If you know what's supposed to happen, you go forth and execute and conviently ignore the instructions. Does the ignoring of instructions result in the work being done improperly? And if so, does the improper work need to be redone? Does the liberal interpretation of procedures cause harm to customer, product, or an internal customer?

Jennifer,
Actually, I can find no evidence that any work related to the process is or has been done improperly or that any harm has been done. It may help to know that the company was executing the process before the process was documented so those doing the work already knew what was expected. It's likely that a new employee would be formally trained according to the documentation and then undergo on-the-job training during which they come to understand what they may not have understood in the formal training based on the documentation. The example that I have chosen is a very simple process, in actuality, that is easily understood and lends itself to ojt. I get the impression that the formal training based on the documentation is "suffered" (no new employee is apt to admit to not understanding fearing that they may be judged incapable) and there is no testing conducted to determine the effectiveness of the document based training.
Further investigation just this morning brings up another point: There are process descriptions for the process and work instructions for the process and the difference seems blurred at best. I will compare the two to determine similarities. WOuld one document suffice?
It will take some time to get all the worms back into the can.
Thanks for your input and consideration.

So what you are saying is the documentation says do these things (a, b, c, d) in this order (1, 2, 3, 4) when in fact, a, d, b, c or b, d, c, a (or any other combination) can be done in any order and the results will be the same?

So, it sounds like over documenting to me. :confused:

Why are those documents in your system at all?

ISO 9001 requires only six procedures. Anything else that goes into your quality system should pass a value test.

ISO 9000 provides a little bit of help, if you have it. In the 2000 edition, the guidance is in 2.7.1. Paraphrasing here, documents have value if you need them to:
- conform to customer requirements
- improve quality
- provide training
- have a repeatable process (standardization is a worthy objective)
- show traceability
- provide objective evidence (applies to the inescapable six, possibly to a few other requirements)
- act as a basis for audit activity (sometimes writing a procedure can be like giving the auditor a club so he can beat you with it)

Any document in your system that doesn't do one of these things is a good candidate for removal or pruning.

Cliff Kachinske

The example that I have chosen is a very simple process, in actuality, that is easily understood and lends itself to ojt. I get the impression that the formal training based on the documentation is "suffered" (no new employee is apt to admit to not understanding fearing that they may be judged incapable) and there is no testing conducted to determine the effectiveness of the document based training.
Further investigation just this morning brings up another point: There are process descriptions for the process and work instructions for the process and the difference seems blurred at best. I will compare the two to determine similarities. WOuld one document suffice?
It will take some time to get all the worms back into the can.
Thanks for your input and consideration. Okay then, what I understand is this:

a. The process existed long before it was written down.
b. The written process is interpreted differently among its users.
c. The process is simple enough to learn with OJT.
d. No evaluation of understanding is done.
e. In spite of its simplicity, employees might not admit if they don't understand it because they do not want to be judged incapable.
f. No harm is done if the process is not done to the letter of the document.

I'm with Steel and Cliff with the question "Why is there a process document for this?"

The standards ask for limited numbers of written processes, but say in many other cases that processes will exist. There's a big difference between the two; it's easy to forget that and make the system harder than it needs to be.

I have a term for a too-strict process: audit swamp.

A process should be documented and regulated when the result of doing things improperly could harm the product/service, external customers (including failure to satisfy requirements) as well as internal customers.

If a process document is being liberally interpreted yet it needs to be followed, a fix requires an understanding of the problem's true nature.

1. Is the document is inappropriate (and why) for the users?
2. Does the document resemble the process?
3. Is the written process viewed as unrealistic because it somehow adversely impacts another process?
4. Do the personnel do not wish to use the documented process? (and why)
5. Are the personnel unable to understand the process or its document? (see #1) If so, could the objective be simplified to a flow chart, flip chart, pictures, colored/numbered/symboled steps, and so on? Let's consider the national statistic: an estimated 20% of adults are functionally illiterate.

I have attached a paper about people not following processes in this thread (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=12122). If the problem is truly personnel-related (I did notice you used the word fear, too) the article addresses that.

However, I'm going to come full circle and urge you to, in all cases, ask "Why is this important?" as I listed in a - f above. I know the warehouse example is only an example, but the logic path to a problem like this could be repeated for many other process problems.

I am struggling with a written process that appears to be ineffective as evidenced by multiple interpretations.

Do the multiple interpretations result in material differences to the process output? If not then there is no noncompliance.

If you have significant differences in process output then you have the evidence for your noncompliance.

Part of the problem could be that we've written what we thought the auditor wanted rather than writing what we actually do in any activity / procedure.


I would just like to commend you. So many times, it's difficult to encourage people to think, and to see things from a different perspective.
You have done a really good job at providing detailed, thought-provoking follow-up posts, which lends to creating more interesting discussion.
:yes:

So many times on the Cove, regular posters get frustrated. They are NOT frustrated with personalities or the questions asked, for the most part. It's frustration that stems from management putting too much pressure on people who don't have time nor training to do what is being asked of them. Too, many folks are so nervous and scared about possibly not passing, they have had the ability to think scared out of them. A good quality system can bring so many rewards to an organization, if management would just take the proper steps.
*************
I know I'm calling out the pink elephant here, but they should be doing what they say they're doing. Otherwise, their quality system is not working. They have a system, just not the one they say they have.

As far as writing this up, I'll leave that to my more experienced auditor colleagues. But I would make sure management understood the inconsistency, and take actions to align the real process with the documentation system.

The folks who are charged with execution, on the floor, are bright and intelligent people who understand the process. If you ask 3 of them for an interpretation of the written documentation, you will get feedback that suggests confusion and some sheepish looks.

All really strong signs that the written documentation either isn't used or isn't useful. (And if it's horrible, complex & overdone, then it won't be useful for them, and is often the root cause)

If you know what's supposed to happen, you go forth and execute and conveniently ignore the instructions.
= Problem. If you can only do it if you 'know' what's supposed to happen, & ignore the instructions, then those instructions are useless. Sooner or later you'll get bitten in the behind by that. I'm with Jennifer - is something needed in writing? Or would it better to focus very hard on what training is required, and ensure adequate training (including assessment of competency) and adequate records thereof.

Part of the problem could be that we've written what we thought the auditor wanted rather than writing what we actually do in any activity / procedure.

Oops! Classic mistake. Infinitely better, more useful, less maintenance & more effective if you write it up for yourselves, not an auditor.

You say there are 'process descriptions for the process and work instructions for the process and the difference seems blurred at best.' And ask if one document would suffice. You betcha. (Or even perhaps none).

We're probably facing re-writing most all of our documents to simply the system and get away from the "ISO Speak Techno Jargon" which is more similar to Code of Federal Regulation sort of construction. Keep in mind that the entire company is 20 people. Should we torch it and start over?

Depends on where you are now, & implications thereof, though I'd lean toward it if it's all as jargon-laden and obtuse as you indicate. Yes, it'll take a little while. But you don't have to do it all at once. Do one at a time, and do it over a period. Look on it as an improvement opportunity: continuous imp. in action, simplifying the written system. But there are multiple problems inherent in having crappy (that's a technical term BTW) procedures, such as: no one likes them, they give people a bad attitude toward the 'quality' system, and trying to audit against crappy procedures is misery-inducing and time-wasting. Simple, clear and streamlined is much better.

One way to do that might be to focus on: what do we need in writing so that we agree how something is done, there aren't major variations in interpretation, and/or someone relatively new can actually follow it and find it useful?


...the piece at which we are looking is entitled "Warehousing". In actuality, the process involves picking, and pulling finished goods for labeling, stretch wrapping and staging prior to shipment.

Plus I'd seriously focus on using words/terms that are understood & what they use. If it's called 'Pick, Pull & Stage' for example, and if you decide you need a procedure, an instruction - or a checklist? - then that's what I'd call it, rather than 'Warehousing'.

First, thanks to Cliff, Paul, Brad, and Jane (as well as anyone I have missed). Where else could I have received personal, thoughtful advice from a experienced team of people from around the world?
I will take more time tonight to re-read your posts and consider the best way(s) to 1.) re-configure, revise, or revamp our system, and 2.) to sell the position that it needs to be done (these may not be in the correct order).
There is also the issue of our current auditor. While he has steadfastly reminds us that he can't tell us what to do, I keep hearing "the auditor requires these records" or "says we have to do it this way" which is in my interpretation consulting as opposed to auditing. There is a marked difference in his verbal communications and those that are written (I have some stories I could tell). Since I have not personally heard him say we "have to do this this way", I cannot determine whether this is the source of the "requirements". I may suggest we have the conversation with the registrar to see how difficult a change would be.
I also want to find the ISO guidance and review that as suggested.

METerry,
You're very welcome - people here love to help! And there's a lot of excellent people giving excellent advice. For my part, I love helping people understand the Standard better, rather than have them suffer or perpetuate the same old misunderstandings, which surely ain't quality in any way that I understand.

I keep hearing "the auditor requires these records" or "says we have to do it this way" which is in my interpretation consulting as opposed to auditing.
Interesting. I'm gathering you are already certified then, rather than in the process? You're right: you must do it this way is NOT in the ISO 9001 Standard (though it's still - depressingly - said, it is NOT true). But if the Standard says 'records of xyz shall be kept'... then by golly, they shall be. The argument - ahem! - discussion, can then be about what is kept, whether it adequately demonstrates the requirements are met, etc... a better discussion. Trying to argue you don't need records if the Standard says you do is a fool's game, and (rightly) unwinnable.

My best advice: Know thy Standard. As well as you can.

Read it, think about it, ask about it (we love to debate it in here), consider it, come to understand it.

Then the real joy and challenge becomes: how can I interpret and apply this requirement orset of requirements to these particular set of circumstances in our business or organisation, in the way that suits us best, and assists us to reach the objectives we've set? :yes:

That's a challenge worth rising to, IMO. (Rather than, 'how can I do this to suit the auditor'. That way lies misery and frustration.):nope:

There is a marked difference in his verbal communications and those that are written (I have some stories I could tell). Since I have not personally heard him say we "have to do this this way", I cannot determine whether this is the source of the "requirements". .

It may not be. It may be misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what he said. (It may not be - but first, let's be generous and fair to all parties).

I also want to find the ISO guidance and review that as suggested.
Very good idea.