I don’t think this problem has been discussed before.

According to what’s written in ISO 9001:2000 about the intervals for performing Internal audits and Management reviews, we have the same requirement – planned intervals.
Of course, organizations are allowed to make these activities in “planned intervals” of 2, 3 or even more years.
Why almost all the registrars ask that these actions are made at least once a year?
Really, just according to the standard, it doesn’t make any sense...

About this question one registrar told the audited organization that it was possible for them to have 3 years intervals between each internal audit and each management review (the duration of each certificate), but in that case the number of days of each 3rd party audit made by this registrar, should be increased.
We still don’t have the answer, but in my opinion it was not a very good idea because for sure the accreditation body won’t allow that.

Comments?

AV

Why almost all the registrars ask that these actions are made at least once a year?...Comments?For the same reason that most calibration intervals are artificially set at 12 months. Perpetuation of "old, tribal knowledge". On top of that, the IAF Guidance to ISO Guide 62 "mandates" the surveillance audits performed by the CB's to happen with a maximum interval of 12 months. You have to draw the line somewhere to create a policy. Otherwise, less than serious certified organizations would artificially set their intervals to meaningless frequencies, such once every decade.
The maturity of the QMS should influence the frequency of internal audits and management reviews, but organizations that believe that internal audits and management reviews are not value added activities typically don't understand the fundamentals of modern principles of managing for Quality.

ISO 9001 is a system meant for businesses, not auditors, CBs or ABs. Traditionally, all accounts need to be closed and audited once a year and it's also during this time that top management conduct their annual review, AGMs and what others where the plan for the year are announced. Quality policy and objectives may need review as a result of these changes. To facilitate things, it's only logical that it becomes mandatory for these to be reviewed yearly also.

Why almost all the registrars ask that these actions are made at least once a year?Interesting question, because our registrar does not... The std requires us to plan an audit programme "taking into consideration the status and importance of the processes and areas to be audited, as well as the results of previous audits.", and ISO9004 expands a bit on that.

Our IA procedure states that the results from an audit (Among other things) shall be used to determine the date for the next one, so in effect we have a rolling schedule: A poor result could mean that next audit will take place in as little as six months, while a really good one could keep us away for 18 months (A real breakdown means a re-audit much sooner, of course, but I have had to resort to that only once or twice in over ten years). The external auditors have nothing against this. Quite the opposite.

/Claes

Follow this link to see a flowchart: http://elsmar.com/Forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2131&d=1083651818

Interesting question, because our registrar does not... The std requires us to plan an audit programme "taking into consideration the status and importance of the processes and areas to be audited, as well as the results of previous audits.", and ISO9004 expands a bit on that.

Our IA procedure states that the results from an audit (Among other things) shall be used to determine the date for the next one, so in effect we have a rolling schedule: A poor result could mean that next audit will take place in as little as six months, while a really good one could keep us away for 18 months (A real breakdown means a re-audit much sooner, of course, but I have had to resort to that only once or twice in over ten years). The external auditors have nothing against this. Quite the opposite.

/Claes

Follow this link to see a flowchart: http://elsmar.com/Forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2131&d=1083651818

I like the way you have set-up your IA systems. I have never looked at it that way.

I have always set the intervals annually. Maybe I will consider that change to the current IA procedure.

Thanks for that different perspective.

I guess I do learn something new daily.

There are some registrars that have placed in their conditions of contract, the requirement to cover all clauses within the internal audit and to perform a management review at least once per year.

There are some registrars that have placed in their conditions of contract, the requirement to cover all clauses within the internal audit and to perform a management review at least once per year.Really? I have never seen that, but once such a contract is signed one has to live with it of course...

/Claes

There are customers that require their suppliers to perform an annual QMS audit. For example, Boeing Commercial Aircraft require that through their Form X31764 - Quality Purchasing Data Requirements (http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/doingbiz/supplier/X31764.pdf).

Disregarding any registrar's individual requirement and ignoring any conceptual or popular opinion within industry, just think about the process you are trying to schedule when you do set a schedule. Quite often we don't read all the words or fill in all the assumed blanks. This can easily lead to ill conceived notions about how and how often to schedule something/anything.

For instance, take Management Review (MR). What is MR supposed to do? According to 5.6.1 MR is there so Top Management can review the Quality Management System (QMS). That review is supposed to ensure continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness. It also assesses opportunities for improvement and changes to the QMS, including the policy and objectives.

We are given only the requirement - it is up to us to determine how we will make that happen. There are several key words in this paragraph. Like "continuing, effectiveness, and need for changes." How do we do those things by looking at something once a year?

The key here is not the schedule at all. The key is the review. How can any Top Management, regardless of how good they are, make any educated decisions about the effectiveness of any part of the QMS by looking at it once a year? I always, almost without fail, insist on a monthly MR. I look at it in comparison with Accounting. Accounting verifies and closes the financial books every month - it is that important. Why is the QMS any less important.

In addition to that we can take lead from automotive (TS 16949) The reviews are to include performance trends. You want to plot one point a year???? You want to wait until 12 points have been plotted before you look at it at all???? Cost of quality is included in that review. We shouldn't worry Top Management about excesive Cost of Quality until the annual Management Review????:nope:

Everything leads to monthly Management Reviews;
Performance Trends
Continuing suitabilty
Effectiveness
Changes to the system
Regular reporting

Whew, didn't mean to go off on you all - but you hit a button. Don't even get me started on internal audits.:lol:

Thanks and good luck

Gary M

:thanx:

Thanks, Gary. That was so 'on the money'.........:agree1: