Has anyone gone through a course for lead auditors focused on auditing to the 2000 standard?

Marc, I have taken the course on auditing to 9K2K for lead auditors. What would you like to know about it.

Just generally curious. Who gave the 'course'? Can you give us a synopsis?

I took two day Transitioning to ISO 9001:2000 by Pathway/Sunrise Consulting.
Basically compared/contrasted '94 rev with new and what would be required to meet new std. A 50 question exam was available for those LAs who were "upgrading".

It only dealt with the differences in the new standards?

Did they talk about differences in auditing techniques or anything other than "...the old standard said....and the new standard says..."?

Course was somewhat weak about auditing approach. Seems each registrar developing their own approach according to instructor.

The course I took was very informative. Yes it did talk about auditing techniques, and to tell you the truth I think the new standard is going to make an auditors life miserable, the way the standard is written it is almost as if they expect the auditor to be an expert on everything (regulatory issues included). That was the impression I got.

Another thing I found interesting was the fact that yes there are only "6" procedures required in the new standard you still need the documentation to prove what you are doing. In my experience when companies get away from SOP's and WI's they also tend to get very lax on the supporting documentation.

I took the Internal Auditor Training Course in Feb. of this year. The course was provided by AQS (Applied Quality Systems, Inc.). This was a 3-day course with 12 hour days and lots of homework and studying!!! The entire course was based on the 2000 standard-the 1994 standard was not addressed or compared-it was a whole new ballgame. I was the only student out of the 20 people there who even had a copy of the new standard prior to attending this class. Everyone did receive a copy of the new standard with the course materials. The instructor was extremely well-versed on the 2000 standard and moved very quickly through all of the material. The classwork was extremely rigorous as was the student participation. We worked in teams and as individuals and were evaluated on our performance. The stress-level among the class was very high, and by the last day, 2 had dropped out. The exam was not easy by any means. We did have an additional student who failed the exam. I will say one thing, though, I really learned this material inside and out!

I think ISO Guy's last paragrah says a lot. There's been so much hype about "only six" procedure requirements that I think a lot of companies are going to get lead down the wrong path. (And/or this is going to make the auditors life a problem!)

If auditing was a bit subjective before, wait...I think it's going to get even more subjective.

This from one who hasn't had training yet (just reading the standard and some of the transition books that are out). I'm looking at a couple of training classes in early June through Statamatrix.

-> (just reading the standard and some of the transition
-> books that are out).

What are the books saying? I have 2 clients which went through an 'upgrade'. Both of them basically revised their manuals and added a few clarifications here and there but there were no new systems or anything like that. Nor did they change any of their systems.

I have the standard and have read it thoroughly. I guess I think the changes are very minor and that there are a lot of garbage courses being sold. It appears little different to me than the Y2K scare.

-> If auditing was a bit subjective before, wait...I think
-> it's going to get even more subjective.
*********
-> I think the new standard is going to make an auditors
-> life miserable, the way the standard is written it is
-> almost as if they expect the auditor to be an expert on
-> everything (regulatory issues included).

This is my concern. This is why I'm interested in what registrars are telling their auditors.

So, ISO Guy, can you give us any specifics?

In these "courses" how much attention is placed on the wording in 9004 guidelines?

Is the consistant pair issue a "justification" to intrepret into the standard itself what should be done or is 9004 viewed as a "Framework" and suggestion information only?

Regards
Jim

Where is the criteria for pass-fail? The 1994 standard was audited to pass or fail, which is what 99% of auditees want. ISO 19011, the official auditing document, is "currently under development".
The 9004-2000 document has a 1 to 5 scale -- can I assume "3" is accepted by most authorities as passing? Please tell me if I missed something obvious, because I've really been looking.

Marc,

I tend to agree with you. After reading through the standard and some of the transition books, I don't know that there are a lot of changes really necessary for an effective ISO system.

Based on some of the posts, though, it seems the hype is overtaking the standard and there seem to be more than a few auditors "forcing" interpretations.

An editorial comment >> Personally, I think it's time for quality professionals to stop simply "rolling over and playing dead" for demanding auditors. Have faith in your system and SELL it against YOUR interpretation of the standard. You may not win all the battles, but I think the war will be won.

[This message has been edited by Dan Larsen (edited 22 May 2001).]

Now that a number of you folks have gone through the upgrade, do you have any comments on different audit 'style' or anything?

ISO9001:2000 is not an auditing standard, it is a quality amangement standard. Hence transition courses should not tell you how to audit, only what the new requirements are.

Originally posted by Unregistered
ISO9001:2000 is not an auditing standard, it is a quality amangement standard. Hence transition courses should not tell you how to audit, only what the new requirements are.

Thats correct the "Transition Course" should tell you how to comply with the new standard. I think we were discussing auditing to the new standard.

I hate the new standard JMHO!!! The Registration audits I have done to 9K2K are interesting to say the least. It makes it very difficult also when a consultant helps them set up their system and the consultant is a (for lack of a better term) complete moron.

While companies do not need as many procedures I still need to see the objective or should I say SUBJECTIVE evidence. If ISO doesnt die before the next planned revision it will be interesting to see what changes they make.:frust:

Interesting that you say companies no longer need as many procedures. It is perhaps better to say that the standard no longer mandates as many procedures. The need is now in the perception of the company itself. Companies now have to recognise in their own systems the need for controls such as documented procedures. In a large organisation I would be interested to say the least if a company did not have operating procedures documented, even for a QMS certified to the new standard.

The changes to a 'reduced' requirement for several procedures is insignificant. They were level II's which most companies will probably chose to retain anyway.

As to:

> The need is now in the perception of the company itself.
> Companies now have to recognise in their own systems the
> need for controls such as documented procedures.

It has always has been that way. This is nothing new. ISO never did specifiy work instruction contents or even require them. This was addressed through weasel phrases like "...where appropriate..." or "...as appropriate...". It has always been up to the company to decide what documented procedures are needed and what they do not need to document - with the exception of several Level IIs required by ISO. Every client I have ever had could explain why they had work instructions where they did and why they didn't where they didn't. ISO was never a significant factor - it's how they were doing business before ISO. I will note that we're talking ISO 9001 here - not QS-9000.

What the change in the latest ISO did do was to clarify that it finally recognizes that smaller companies need less documentation than larger companies do thus dampening overzealous auditors who 'expected' more 'detail' in many smaller companies. These were typically written up as 'Opportunities for Improvement' - which to me is nothing less than consulting.

> ISO9001:2000 is not an auditing standard, it is a quality
> amangement standard. Hence transition courses should not
> tell you how to audit, only what the new requirements are.

This is one of those "...it's this simple..." statements which does not adddress the details and the reality. The changes have been significant enough in some areas that the auditor has to approach issues differently. The audits I have been through have been - for the most part - more subjective. Especially when it comes to continual improvement issues. I have described my experiencs in several threads here so I won't repeat myself, but to say that the transition courses do not address audit methodology is naive at best. :thedeal:

I know that the transition courses discuss audit approach, and have attended such a session myself. However I dont believe that the approach to auditing changes with this standard, as it is not an auditing standard. The session I went to was specifically ISO9001:2000 for internal auditors, the approach discussed was no different to the way I have conducted audits over the years. Maybe I am just ahead of my time ?

I dont believe that audits have to be more subjective, they must still be objective, subjectivity comes from inexperienced or unknowledgable auditors.

On the subject of auditing continual improvment it is not sufficient to state in an audit the subjective opinion that 'things appeared to be improving'. The audit should look at the system of continual improvement, how it is measured, where the data comes from, is it accurate/correct, is the rational for improvment programs sound, then does the data show improvement. This can be audited on hard objective data.

> Maybe I am just ahead of my time ?

Well, maybe. How many years have you been deeply involved in ISO 9001?

I´m attaching the document IRCA 2146 where there are the criteria for the IRCA Certificated Auditor who want the transition from the ISO 9001:1994 to the ISO 9001:2000. I followed a transition training course with compliance to this document.
Regards,
Reinaldo Ramirez

rrramirez sent this to be posted.

In India where ISO lead audit course available , particularly Chennai or bangalore

In India where ISO lead audit course available , particularly Chennai or bangalore

Now that a number of you folks have gone through the upgrade, do you have any comments on different audit 'style' or anything?
Nothing at all. A lot of homeworks and some different wording.
The new ISO 19011 doesn´t clarify where an EMS audit and a QMS audit really means.
The problem is that you must pay in the near future a new re-certification as you can deduct from http://www.irca.org
More money to spend.... :bonk: