Does your policy say that you intend to improve and meet customer expectations? If it does then it doesn't matter what else you put in it, up to and includiing a recipe for Toll House Cookies.

Just remember, everything you put into you policy is auditable and your feet can be held to the fire because of it.

Tell the auditor to get past the policy tripe and on to the real system stuff.

I chose to start this thread with a post Randy made on another thread.

Now, you (Randy) are a senior auditor, saying "talk to the auditor about this... ".

I have seen many posts here from auditors, suggesting people to talk to their auditors about.... Or, suggest to the auditors about....

I don't know about everyone else, but I have pretty much seen the spectrum. Either people don't say a thing, or they want to argue about every little point.

What kind of talking points are appropriate with auditors? What are some things up for discussion, and what isn't? What about timing?

NOTE: Auditors are human, and each of you may have different perspectives. That is the reason I started this. The more people see different viewpoints, the more is understood about auditors, their differences, and the difficulty of their jobs. The goal is that those who are auditees will learn and develop a little better appreciation and ability to communicate with the auditors.

Wow!

You're right about this. I've audited folks that were intimidated to the point of being a clam because of their past experiences and I don't really understand that. I like people to ask questions and maybe even help keep me on track by challenging me. I don't know how many of the folks I've interviewed are here (in the Cove) but I believe they'd back me up on that. I've found that looking at items of contention from their point of view has had positive results and turned into a win-win.

Wanna communicate with me? Be honest to yourself and to me, I'm not the enemy, and I'm successful only when you are.

If you don't agree, tell me and we'll re-visit the problem. I'm on your clock/dime, not mine.

You need clarification? Clarification isn't a problem, telling you "how" is, so please don't expect that. I'll show you exactly what is required from the standard/document, not from my interpretation, and I'll use the whole standard/document, not just a piece of it.

We'll see where this Thread goes..........

Probably the biggest barrier to WIN-WIN communication between auditor and auditee is the organizational stress the auditee is often under to get registered or lose (fail to qualify for) a major contract which means the difference between profit and loss for an organization. Sometimes, it is the individual management rep or quality manager whose job is on the line depending on the outcome of the audit.

Folks under stress can and do act very weird. There is no way any auditor can know about that stress directly, but most of them feel it as a palpable tension when they arrive on the premises. Some, certainly not all, of those auditors have sufficient people skills to make folks as comfortable with the process of an audit as possible, but many auditors sadly lack those people skills and their impersonal, all-business approach with little explanation can strike fear in the hearts of some and raise hackles in those who feel they have as much or more knowledge about a Standard than the auditor.

The registrars who hire auditors can do a lot toward ameliorating this communication barrier by providing user-friendly materials beforehand describing the audit process and encouraging the auditee to engage in dialog with the auditor for explanations both during the audit tour and during the post-audit conference. An effort should be made to explain some auditor decisions are reviewable and that not every nonconformance or "observation" is necessarily fatal to the life of the organization or even the individual careers of management reps and quality managers, since every registrar provides an adequate window to cure nonconformances or negotiate compromises with the registrar.

A word or two about auditors and "consulting"
Registrars and auditors (and even many auditees) are overly concerned, in my opinion, with interpreting any friendly hint or conversation by the auditor as some sort of "consulting" thereby condemning both the auditor who does so and his registrar as some sort of fiends to be driven from the industry. The plain fact is, some auditors can make an off-hand remark that "one of my successful auditees does it this way" and depending on the intended recipient or eavesdropper, the comment is interpreted as good, bad, or stupid, depending on the baggage the listener brings to the table.

Bad auditors or bad auditees?
Everyone has either personally experienced or read or heard horror stories of both bad auditors and bad auditees. Based on my years of experience, my guess is that diligent research would prove most of the stories are merely based on bad communication, BUT some of them are true. I'm not alone in wishing there were some preventive action which could eliminate or ameliorate such instances and cut down on the FEAR and DISTRUST mechanisms they engender in both auditors and auditees.

NOTE: Auditors are human, and each of you may have different perspectives. That is the reason I started this. The more people see different viewpoints, the more is understood about auditors, their differences, and the difficulty of their jobs. The goal is that those who are auditees will learn and develop a little better appreciation and ability to communicate with the auditors.

Simple suggestion:

Apply the "Golden Rule." Amazing what this can do. :)

Stijloor.

Probably the biggest barrier to WIN-WIN communication between auditor and auditee is the organizational stress the auditee is often under to get registered or lose (fail to qualify for) a major contract which means the difference between profit and loss for an organization. Sometimes, it is the individual management rep or quality manager whose job is on the line depending on the outcome of the audit.


Are people's job really on the line over audit outcomes? That is very sad.


Folks under stress can and do act very weird. There is no way any auditor can know about that stress directly, but most of them feel it as a palpable tension when they arrive on the premises. Some, certainly not all, of those auditors have sufficient people skills to make folks as comfortable with the process of an audit as possible, but many auditors sadly lack those people skills and their impersonal, all-business approach with little explanation can strike fear in the hearts of some and raise hackles in those who feel they have as much or more knowledge about a Standard than the auditor.

The registrars who hire auditors can do a lot toward ameliorating this communication barrier by providing user-friendly materials beforehand describing the audit process and encouraging the auditee to engage in dialog with the auditor for explanations both during the audit tour and during the post-audit conference. An effort should be made to explain some auditor decisions are reviewable and that not every nonconformance or "observation" is necessarily fatal to the life of the organization or even the individual careers of management reps and quality managers, since every registrar provides an adequate window to cure nonconformances or negotiate compromises with the registrar.



I think this is an excellent, simple suggestion. Why don't they?


A word or two about auditors and "consulting"
Registrars and auditors (and even many auditees) are overly concerned, in my opinion, with interpreting any friendly hint or conversation by the auditor as some sort of "consulting" thereby condemning both the auditor who does so and his registrar as some sort of fiends to be driven from the industry. The plain fact is, some auditors can make an off-hand remark that "one of my successful auditees does it this way" and depending on the intended recipient or eavesdropper, the comment is interpreted as good, bad, or stupid, depending on the baggage the listener brings to the table.



OK, I think this is a salient point, that has potential for some improvement. Has the pendulum swung too much the other way, where it has become too sterilized for making "hey, just a thought", or other observations?


Simple suggestion:

Apply the "Golden Rule." Amazing what this can do. :)

Stijloor.


Agreed, Stijloor. But my agreement only comes as of late. I participate on the Cove for several reasons, but primarily, it is to learn. I learned how many are, well... more on the cutting edge of quality. Saying, dedicated, professionals who are concerned about the process, about improvement and the like.

So, lately I always give auditors the benefit of the doubt that they do care about the process. Thus communication occurs about the process. It doesn't go perfect, as we are still humans. But I seem to understand a lot better their approach, and their findings (whatever they are) seem to be a lot more appreciated and acted upon quicker.

It kind of does boil down to people and communication, doesn't it?:)

Brad, certainly communication is a big issue here but I also think that the level of knowledge on the part of both auditor and auditee is also key. I often find that more knowledgeable, experienced auditees are less afraid to receive nonconformities and are therefore more 'open'.

They realise that an NC is simply a mechanism for improvement and, providing it is not a major, is not a bad thing to get during an audit.

Likewise, the more experienced auditor can (usually) make a better balanced judgement as to what is important and what is not.

I think the best thing auditees can do for themselves is to have clear expectations about the purpose of the audit and auditor behavior and make those expectations known to the auditor and CB.

Here are a few:

Treat our people and organization with respect or expect to be shown the door.

The purpose of the audit is to assess whether the system complies with the standard. It is not to get help running the business.

The system may or may not be convenient to audit. If it is, great. If not, do the job you are being paid to do anyway.

The auditee gets the benefit of the doubt.

The auditor bears the burden of proof.

Document your OFI's.

If there's a nonconformance, write it. Otherwise keep your critical comments to yourself.

"Objective evidence" does not necessarily mean a documented record.

Don't pretend that things you like to see are required by the standard.

Take the time to familiarize yourself with the system. Read some of the flippin' documentation.

Ask how things are done, rather than making assumptions.

I often find myself treating an audit/auditor as a learning experience. If the auditor is good, they are likely more experienced than myself, which gives me an opportunity to learn from them.

I understand the mentality of being nervous during an audit, but truly, you shouldn't be worrying about losing your job over a few findings unless there is something else going on in the background. And if you don't stand your ground, ask for clarification, dispute your perspective, then you are simply acquiescing to whatever whim the auditor may have and you need to be replaced by someone better suited to the task.

I don't really think you need to take on a hunted deer mentality when you're subject to an audit and I don't think you need to treat auditors like aliens or use any special techniques to have a discussion with them. If an auditor says something that doesn't sound right, challenge him, get clarification, if they are obviously wrong but refuse to admit it, let them make a write up and get it voided later by their staff engineer. Treat them kindly, professionally, and not otherworldly/dangerous and you'll do fine in an audit.

Treat them kindly, professionally, and not otherworldly/dangerous and you'll do fine in an audit.

Give 'em a good lunch:lol:

Give 'em a good lunch:lol:

I'm wondering if this is a trademark of all BSI auditors - sure matches ours:lmao: All kidding aside - we think ours is just great.

:lol:

I always find that funny, the auditor gets their lunch comped through their own company, so buying them lunch isn't really much of a benefit...but most of them expect to have it provided....I once told an auditor we were working through lunch because I had a very very busy day scheduled, he looked absolutely miserable the rest of the day.

Give 'em a good lunch:lol:

This is your second post today about lunch. You must be hungry!:tg:

:lol:

I always find that funny, the auditor gets their lunch comped through their own company, so buying them lunch isn't really much of a benefit...but most of them expect to have it provided....I once told an auditor we were working through lunch because I had a very very busy day scheduled, he looked absolutely miserable the rest of the day.

All kidding aside... should auditees at least ask auditors out to lunch?

I understand the mentality of being nervous during an audit, but truly, you shouldn't be worrying about losing your job over a few findings unless there is something else going on in the background. And if you don't stand your ground, ask for clarification, dispute your perspective, then you are simply acquiescing to whatever whim the auditor may have and you need to be replaced by someone better suited to the task.



I totally agree with you on this. However... like Wes alluded to, there may be more complex pressures from the organization than just that individual's response. Could we say that a large part of the problem is the management? Is there better preparation for managers (similar to Stijloor's presentation he provided in the other thread)?

This is your second post today about lunch. You must be hungry!:tg:

:topic:Yeah, I hit 280, the wife flipped and I'm on high protein, no cokes and definitely no cheeseburgers w/fries:(

Pasta is history, as is ice cream, guacamole, gummi bears, ranch dip, cookies (I'm a cookie monster and this hurts as bad as the no cokes), nerds (the candy) and other fun stuff.

I totally agree with you on this. However... like Wes alluded to, there may be more complex pressures from the organization than just that individual's response. Could we say that a large part of the problem is the management? Is there better preparation for managers (similar to Stijloor's presentation he provided in the other thread)?

Hello Brad,

This post + attachment (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=210295&postcount=2) may be of help to prepare managers for the audit.

Stijloor.

:topic:Yeah, I hit 280, the wife flipped and I'm on high protein, no cokes and definitely no cheeseburgers w/fries:(

Pasta is history, as is ice cream, guacamole, gummi bears, ranch dip, cookies (I'm a cookie monster and this hurts as bad as the no cokes), nerds (the candy) and other fun stuff.

Have you tried sugar-free gummies?

Have you tried sugar-free gummies?

Yech!:yuk:

Yeah, I've been force fed all kinds of sugar-free this and that. My greatest sugar intake is from Coca-Cola (I'm addicted) and the sugar-free, including Zero just doesn't cut it.

:lol:

I always find that funny, the auditor gets their lunch comped through their own company, so buying them lunch isn't really much of a benefit...but most of them expect to have it provided....I once told an auditor we were working through lunch because I had a very very busy day scheduled, he looked absolutely miserable the rest of the day.
:2cents:
All the companies that I work for do not automatically pay for lunch and I only get the money if I request it, usually against receipts, which are then charged back to the customer.

All kidding aside... should auditees at least ask auditors out to lunch?

FWIW, on the topic of unethical activities, most of the study material I covered in preparing for the ASQ CQA exam advised that auditors should decline free lunches and such.

FWIW, on the topic of unethical activities, most of the study material I covered in preparing for the ASQ CQA exam advised that auditors should decline free lunches and such.

I think that's absurd. There's nothing unethical about good hospitality.

FWIW, on the topic of unethical activities, most of the study material I covered in preparing for the ASQ CQA exam advised that auditors should decline free lunches and such.

Why, because we're being bought off? I have a per diem I can't possibly meet the max of and a $3.00 $6.00 sandwich is going to influence me? Maybe the preparer's of those materials need to realign their ethics. Do those folks really think that or are they just blowing some more hot, puffy air?

"We really expect a good report, and oh, by the way, here's a ham & cheese to sweeten the deal.":lmao:

Offer me a Corvette (preferably C3 or C4:drool:) and I might consider it, but a Quizno's? :nope:

I think typically it's not so much a matter of finances. I typically treat auditors to lunch because as Jim says it's just good hospitality, it's unfriendly to allow a visitor to your town/business to go to lunch in an area they are unfamiliar with and by themselves.

On the same side of the coin I don't think auditors should expect you to take them out to lunch and foot the bill.

FWIW, on the topic of unethical activities, most of the study material I covered in preparing for the ASQ CQA exam advised that auditors should decline free lunches and such.The problem with "absolutes" is there is no way to tell someone it is OK to bring in deli sandwiches for audit crew and their escorts or feed someone in the company cafeteria free to all employees, especially when the facility may be far from any reasonable place for the auditor to fetch his own lunch.

The other side of the coin is when lunch turns into a 3 hour binge at a local "gentlemen's club" with lap dances included (and perhaps surreptitious photos.)

Heck, even the IRS has guidelines for on-site auditors to accept beverages, snacks, and reasonably priced lunches on-site in lieu of leaving the premises for an extended search to find and eat lunch.

I think that's absurd.

:yes:During our audits, all our plants have lunches brought in (some locations have better food than others) and the auditor joins top management for lunch. NOTE: Free food does tend to keep management available:lol:

"We really expect a good report, and oh, by the way, here's a ham & cheese to sweeten the deal.":lmao:



We only offer peanut butter/jelly (sugar free) sandwich.

Can we get certified with zero nonconformity?:lmao:

We only offer peanut butter/jelly (sugar free) sandwich.

Can we get certified with zero nonconformity?:lmao:That sounds like one of those places where bottled water is more expensive than beer and most likely less free of microbial contamination than the beer!;)

FWIW, on the topic of unethical activities, most of the study material I covered in preparing for the ASQ CQA exam advised that auditors should decline free lunches and such.

I'm glad Doug mentioned this...

While you are all correct in your replies, I was trained the same as Doug. Hence the reason I broached the subject.

We only offer peanut butter/jelly (sugar free) sandwich.

Can we get certified with zero nonconformity?:lmao:

Offer me a sugar free PBJ, and I'm gonna find something to write up!!:lol:

Offer me a Corvette (preferably C3 or C4:drool:) and I might consider it, but a Quizno's? :nope:

To ensure the successful outcome of the audit, should go like this?

In preparation for the audit, the auditor would prefer the following items the be available:

Corvette C4 (http://images.webkrafters.com/trinity/24300/94corv24344-1.JPG)
A light lunch consisting of Quizno's Sandwiches (http://www.pe.com/imagesdaily/2007/07-11/dude11_bajachicken_400.jpg).
Failure to comply will result in the postponement of the audit, until the auditor's wishes have been fulfilled. :D :D

I think that's absurd. There's nothing unethical about good hospitality.

I tend to agree with you. I see nothing wrong with offering to take
an auditor to lunch. I believe a wise auditor can recognize a bribe
when it's presented (sugar free or not). That being said, I noted that
the FDA auditors we had in last fall declined our offer for lunch.

To ensure the successful outcome of the audit, should go like this?

In preparation for the audit, the auditor would prefer the following items the be available:

Corvette C4 (http://images.webkrafters.com/trinity/24300/94corv24344-1.JPG)
A light lunch consisting of Quizno's Sandwiches (http://www.pe.com/imagesdaily/2007/07-11/dude11_bajachicken_400.jpg).
Failure to comply will result in the postponement of the audit, until the auditor's wishes have been fulfilled. :D :D

There you, you got it:applause::lmao:

(Red or Canary A*s yellow if you please)

:agree1: You go Cliff K! I know from my past experiences that when an auditor has blinders on and doesn't look past his preconcieved notion of how everyone should do something and accept that every company is different even if they all comply with the same standard, it doesn't help the customer (the auditee) who is paying for his or her time and supposed expertise. If auditors would do the things you listed, everyone would get along.

I worked as a Quality Manager for a company where the fear was palpable about auditors. Veiled threats of termination were made about receiving nonconformances. It does happen. What this company didn't realize is that fear is not a good motivating factor.

I love Elsmar! You are all teaching me so much!:thanx:

I think I have memorized the menus for subway, quiznos, potbelly, atlanta bread co., panera. I'm so sick of sandwiches (turkey, cheese, lettuce, jalapenos, black olives)!
I decided last year to remove "lunch" from my audit plan and schedule, so now it is up to the auditee whether we will break for lunch, work through lunch, bring lunch in, go out, or if I just go away for an hour.

Mostly the change is because I am doing more second party audits and fewer first party audits. I don't want the auditees to feel obligated.

Boy Randy, you're making me feel svelt at a mere 245 lbs and 6'2" tall and within 1 year of your age. :)

Seriously, at my prior employer we always arranged for shared lunches on the premises with our auditor, with management other than QA invited (they didn't always show) but QA always shared lunch, and often, but not always worked with the auditor during lunch. We often offered to meet for dinner as well, but were usually turned down - I would have done the same in the auditor's shoes wanting some personal time rather than having to be "on stage" for a more extended time frame.

The parent company of my prior employer was European, Swedish to be precise, and managers from the parent company had a very different attitude towards auditors than US citizens - we were much more liable to question an audior, or ask for clarification than they were, almost putting them up on a bit of a pedestal.

In 15 years of dealing with auditors at 3 different companies, I only ran across one really bad one - treated employees, especially female ones as second class citizens, and could not get his mind around how iron powders were produced, tested, approved, etc. He was very comfortable with our induction furnace operation producing master alloys for the foundry industry. Unfortunately, that was only about 10% of our business, if even that.

I will be finding out what is standard for my new employer - our surveillance audit for ISO 9001 should be in May with ABS Quality Evaluations, a change from prior organizations which used LRQA or SRI.

Lunch? You're lucky to get lunch!

When I was a CB auditor, we had to wait until we heard the horn of a 'roach coach' as it made its rounds - and if we didn't (because we were busily engaged in the audit at the other end of the building - no-one would get us lunch!

Then the QA manager would hold up his hands in horror, drive us (muttering under his breath) clear across town to a pub and sit, cross armed - until we'd finished our sandwiches.

And you tell that to folks today and they won't believe you.......

At my previous job, during my first assessment there, I was suddenly surprised by a request from the Auditor to my boss:
-"So, it´s time for lunch! Aren´t you going to take me to that delicious restaurant that we went last time?"
This became a joke in the company: "nice meal, no nonconformities..." and I got really upset with that. My boss liked it because it took 2 hours to go and come back (it means less time auditted).
:bigwave:
alekra

Lunch? You're lucky to get lunch!

When I was a CB auditor, we had to wait until we heard the horn of a 'roach coach' as it made its rounds - and if we didn't (because we were busily engaged in the audit at the other end of the building - no-one would get us lunch!

Then the QA manager would hold up his hands in horror, drive us (muttering under his breath) clear across town to a pub and sit, cross armed - until we'd finished our sandwiches.

And you tell that to folks today and they won't believe you.......

Have I ever mentioned the client that used to take me to a very nice B&B in Cajun Country that had a restaurant with an afternoon brunch on Thursday featuring a Victoria Secret fashion show? It was always a big hit;) (I wasn't working for my present employer folks)

Probably :topic:
Back in the early 90's, we had a customer's auditor phone to say she was in the area and would like to perform a surprise audit. I took the call and gave her driving directions to come from her hotel near O'Hare, about 15 minutes driving time from our office. She arrived about 11:00 am and went out with one of our staff to take the tour, look at her company's parts, and talk to the machine operator who ran them. About 11:45, she was back in the office. I anticipated the usual BS of wanting to review all our quality records, but she surprised us by saying she'd like to go to lunch. We offered to take her, but she said she'd prefer to go alone. We gave her several suggestions/recommendations, but she said she was generally familiar with the area. She was driving a distinctive bright blue rental car. We told her to take her time, someone would always be around to escort her when she returned.

In the meantime, we called in a lunch order for ourselves and sent someone out to pick it up about 12:15. When our driver returned, he reported seeing her distinctive blue rental car in front of a "hot sheet" motel room not far from our sandwich place - no food service except vending machines at that motel!

At about 4:00 pm, she came back, sort of dissheveled, and smelling of alcohol, left us a carbon of her "inspection report" (we had to initial her original) and was gone by 4:10! For nearly 15 years I've wondered if that was really her rental car at the motel and what was the real story of the auditor's 4 hour lunch.

I think typically it's not so much a matter of finances. I typically treat auditors to lunch because as Jim says it's just good hospitality, it's unfriendly to allow a visitor to your town/business to go to lunch in an area they are unfamiliar with and by themselves.

On the same side of the coin I don't think auditors should expect you to take them out to lunch and foot the bill.
You're gonna foot the bill anyway, 'cause you're paying their expenses.

Certain organizations formalize it in the audit agenda. I think the exact words are "light lunch on site."

I think the exact words are "light lunch on site."

My CB auditor called it WORKING LUNCH... How can anyone work while eating??
:biglaugh:

My CB auditor called it WORKING LUNCH... How can anyone work while eating??
:biglaugh:FWIW:
It can be done. When I was an Investment Banker in the 70's and 80's, we had a "working breakfast" every Monday from 7:00 am to 8:30 am, catered in the Board Room for the C-level suite. Each officer summarized the previous week from his perspective and outlined the agenda for the coming week. Each submitted a written copy of his previous week summary and future agenda for each of the other officers. As questions were asked and answered during the verbal report, a secretary made notes on her copy of the document and later that day, redacted copies with the notes of the meeting were redistributed to all parties. During the balance of the week, it was rare to have more than two executives in the building at the same time as we were out "deal making" with our staffs.

The most junior officer was always the meeting moderator and ran a time clock even against our Chairman. No rambling was encouraged. The meeting was strictly business and kept to the agenda and timetable every week. Group or individual action items from previous meetings were raised as "old business" at the start of each Monday session by the moderator who apparently boned up all day Sunday to be ready for the Monday morning.

Lunches were always reserved with investors, clients, or prospects. Dinners, association meetings, and cultural events were primarily business networking for us mostly to give "face time" to competitors, allies, and to scout out potential clients and investors.

My CB auditor called it WORKING LUNCH... How can anyone work while eating??
:biglaugh:

This reminds me of something I read several years ago, where a writer was asked what the most difficult thing about being a professional writer was. Unfortunately I don't recall the source, so I can't give proper attribution, but the answer was, "Explaining to my wife that when I'm sitting at my desk gazing out the window, I am working."

This reminds me of something I read several years ago, where a writer was asked what the most difficult thing about being a professional writer was. Unfortunately I don't recall the source, so I can't give proper attribution, but the answer was, "Explaining to my wife that when I'm sitting at my desk gazing out the window, I am working."

I have the same issue here. There are those that think my being at home (like now) is just a "free" vacation. I'm not scheduled to go out until Jan 29th and my "road" year ended Dec 21st. In the eyes of others, including the wife, I'm probably coasting in the office.

Coasting?

I'm generally at my desk (I have a real office of about 400 sqft with a private bath and exterior entry) by 7:30AM M-F on most days (the head office starts at 8:30) and I'm in here many days until after 6PM and at times later in the evening if Judi is doing something. (last night until 1AM, Judi is at her sisters in Witchita).

I had to work on Dec 22nd (Saturday) grading exams, closing out the course I did the previous week, filing expenses and all that. Christmas week from Sunday thru the next Sunday I took off.........I was in the office Dec 31st all day closing out the year and doing a couple 2nd grading of exams that I had been sent to look over. Jan 1st off. I have been back in the office non-stop since Jan 2nd and here's what I've accomplished.

Total revison of the 18K Understanding course for 18K2007
Total revison of the 18K Internal Auditing course for 18K2007
Total revison of the 14K Internal Auditing course
About 50% of a PAS 99 Implementation course
2nd and 3rd gradings of about a dozen exams for 14K, 18K and 9K courses
My 2007 performance review with my boss
Multiple pieces of planning coordination with our sales folks
Personal training on BS5999
Looking through and working on my audit client files (I have 2 jobs, Instructor and Client Manager)
And a bunch of smaller things............

But in the end there may be those that think I might be sliding (gazing out the window).:lol:

Oh, well:bonk:

Golden Rule works for me!

I think that's absurd. There's nothing unethical about good hospitality.

Quite agree. Suggest the best guidance is common courtesy. The auditor/s are visitors and at the very least, IMO courtesy dictates that at the very least one ascertains that they have their basic needs taken care of, even if that's just checking whether they've brought lunch/need arrangements, etc.

Sometimes I've taken auditors to lunch; sometimes I've not. Sometimes I've accompanied them, & sometimes not. At times the auditor wishes to go away and collect their thoughts alone (I fully empathise); sometimes they're very happy to have a lunch on the premises. And I also have trouble seeing a modest lunch/sandwich or the like as anything close to a bribe. Hmm, maybe my standards are too low :tg:

One auditor told me about once being at a large client (top 100 on our stock exchange here) with managers in a department. Come 12pm, they just announced, 'we're off for lunch, see you in an hour or so' and simply walked out on him. And went to their subsidized company canteen. They didn't even have the courtesy to suggest somewhere nearby within walking distance (it was a VERY large plant) where he could get his own lunch. OK, perhaps they 'assumed' he'd made his own arrangements. It seemed a shockingly uncivil way to behave IMO.

I can't think of any auditor who has 'expected' to be taken to lunch. I can recall many who were taken (often just to the local sandwich bar/takeaway, & not always particularly glamorous), and they were all appreciative and courteous if the client paid for it, which sometimes they did.

It's often nice to have a chance to chat with an auditor over a break, and get to know them in person a bit, in a relatively informal setting.

BTW On the stress side of the scale, another horror story from another auditor of a certification audit at a large client. On the last day of the audit, the QM's boss had 2 things sitting on his desk: a termination notice (to be given if they didn't pass) and the key to a new car (bonus if they did). And took care to let the QM know about both of them. A horrible way to 'manage' people. Fortunately in this case they passed. Hope the QM found a better organisation to work in.

Are people's job really on the line over audit outcomes? That is very sad.


I have to say, my JOB isn't on the line... but a raise most certainly is!! And the fact that I have not had anything tarnishing my record up to this point. Nerves do tend to get the best of people most of the time. As I write this, I am trying to keep my composure... I am having an "On-Site Readiness Review" today. *Crossing my fingers!* My auditor is pretty personable, so I am making an effort to relax. He welcomes questions and comments and does a fine job at clarifying without making suggestions. I'd have to say, if you can't talk to your auditor like a human being then you may have picked the wrong auditor. Don't you think?

I have to say, my JOB isn't on the line... but a raise most certainly is!! And the fact that I have not had anything tarnishing my record up to this point. Nerves do tend to get the best of people most of the time. As I write this, I am trying to keep my composure... I am having an "On-Site Readiness Review" today. *Crossing my fingers!* My auditor is pretty personable, so I am making an effort to relax. He welcomes questions and comments and does a fine job at clarifying without making suggestions. I'd have to say, if you can't talk to your auditor like a human being then you may have picked the wrong auditor. Don't you think?

Good luck to you, Kyle! Yes, it does help one's nerves to have an auditor who is personable and easy to talk to and ask questions of.

Here's to hoping things go very well for you in the audit and that your raise is most reflective of the good job you've done thus far! :agree1: :cfingers:

Yes, good luck, Kyle!

Concerning off-site meals, etc., let's look at who we are dealing with here. An experience auditor will have seen how LOTs of people operate their business. While they cannot consult, what's to stop them from answering, in general terms, a question like "Our system for managing procedures seems to work OK, but I would like to improve it. Have you seen anything that you might suggest that would help us?" over a meal or a beer?. If they are not comfortable answering an open-ended question like that, they can just say "nope".

To me, cooperation is much more enjoyable, and most often generates the best results.

I have to say, my JOB isn't on the line... but a raise most certainly is!! And the fact that I have not had anything tarnishing my record up to this point. Nerves do tend to get the best of people most of the time. As I write this, I am trying to keep my composure... I am having an "On-Site Readiness Review" today. *Crossing my fingers!* My auditor is pretty personable, so I am making an effort to relax. He welcomes questions and comments and does a fine job at clarifying without making suggestions. I'd have to say, if you can't talk to your auditor like a human being then you may have picked the wrong auditor. Don't you think?

Good Luck Kyle!!!

I am sure you are going to get a big raise!!!

Yes, good luck, Kyle!

While they cannot consult, what's to stop them from answering, in general terms, a question like "Our system for managing procedures seems to work OK, but I would like to improve it. Have you seen anything that you might suggest that would help us?"

This is dangerous ground, but have I tread upon it? Yeah, but very delicately as have many others.

Here is the guidance we have to follow from the US accreditation body ANAB.

These advisories are not optional.

Because I do training as well as auditing I have to cross some very, very thin ice.

This is dangerous ground, but have I tread upon it? Yeah, but very delicately as have many others.

Here is the guidance we have to follow from the US accreditation body ANAB.

These advisories are not optional.

Because I do training as well as auditing I have to cross some very, very thin ice.

Both of the documents prohibit the following:

...giving specific advice, instructions, solutions towards the development and implementation of a management system...
(My emphasis)

As this requirement is generally interpreted, what stops anyone from giving specific advice, instructions, etc. regarding a management system that's already been developed and implemented? It seems to me that if they wanted absolutely no specific advice being given, they would have said "...development, implementation or improvement..."

Both of the documents prohibit the following:


(My emphasis)

As this requirement is generally interpreted, what stops anyone from giving specific advice, instructions, etc. regarding a management system that's already been developed and implemented? It seems to me that if they wanted absolutely no specific advice being given, they would have said "...development, implementation or improvement..."


What is meant is that we can provide no specific solution to their specific problems. We have to be very general and it has to be understood as general.

The interpretation is "don't tell 'em how ta do nuttin, no how and no where"

Now if asked "What does this clause mean?" Pandora has had the lid ripped from the box.................As long as you don't say "how specifically"

My auditor is pretty personable, so I am making an effort to relax. He welcomes questions and comments and does a fine job at clarifying without making suggestions. I'd have to say, if you can't talk to your auditor like a human being then you may have picked the wrong auditor. Don't you think?

Yes. Definitely. Seek out the good ones, they are around - just look at some of the fine examples in this forum, for example.;)

I know there's a few crappy ones around, come across a few myself. But I'd also contend there are also crappy examples in just about any profession or field you care to mention.

Good luck with your review.

Yes. Definitely. Seek out the good ones, they are around - just look at some of the fine examples in this forum, for example.;)

I know there's a few crappy ones around, come across a few myself. But I'd also content there are also crappy examples in just about any profession or field you care to mention.

Good luck with your review.

We need to view auditors the same way we hope they'll view us: objectively and as dispassionately as possible. My own experience jibes with Jane's observation about bad auditors being in the (small) minority. So much so, in fact, that if you have a continuing problem with bad auditors, it's probably time to look in the mirror for a solution.

if you have a continuing problem with bad auditors, it's probably time to look in the mirror for a solution.Jim, your insight is profound. :agree1:
http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/dysfunction.jpg

This is dangerous ground, but have I tread upon it? Yeah, but very delicately as have many others.

Here is the guidance we have to follow from the US accreditation body ANAB.

These advisories are not optional.

Because I do training as well as auditing I have to cross some very, very thin ice.

Of course there are very clear limits, and I don't think our auditor has ever crossed the line. But, my point is that keeping things "strictly business" and as cold as possible is not the best way to go in most cases because some of the interaction may be lost.

Would anyone really like to be audited by a robot? Would that be the way to get the best value for the company? I think not. The auditors we have used are very experienced, and I am going to try to learn whatever I can from them.

Of course there are very clear limits, and I don't think our auditor has ever crossed the line. But, my point is that keeping things "strictly business" and as cold as possible is not the best way to go in most cases because some of the interaction may be lost.

Would anyone really like to be audited by a robot? Would that be the way to get the best value for the company? I think not. The auditors we have used are very experienced, and I am going to try to learn whatever I can from them.

I'd like to add something here that I may have missed if anyone else has made mention of it. I think that most of us here are well aware that there are "lines" the auditors are not allowed to cross and for the most part, we wouldn't try to lure them across those lines, being professionals that we are. Ok, I know that there are some folks out there who would try it, but for the most part we recognize their limits and respect them.

There have been times that I wanted so very badly to ask our auditors a question that I knew they couldn't answer without it being perceived as "consulting". There is a line that we as quality professionals recognize and respect. To "go there" and ask that question would have put our auditors on the spot and embarrassed me at the same time (because I knew they couldn't answer it without it being perceived by some as consulting :o).

Maybe that's just me, and maybe I'm assuming way too much of the quality profession in general. :mg:

Of course there are very clear limits, and I don't think our auditor has ever crossed the line. But, my point is that keeping things "strictly business" and as cold as possible is not the best way to go in most cases because some of the interaction may be lost.

Would anyone really like to be audited by a robot? Would that be the way to get the best value for the company? I think not. The auditors we have used are very experienced, and I am going to try to learn whatever I can from them.


I never do anything or act "just strictly business". Just check around with some of the folks here that know me. And I sure ain't no robot:lol:

...
There have been times that I wanted so very badly to ask our auditors a question that I knew they couldn't answer without it being perceived as "consulting". There is a line that we as quality professionals recognize and respect. To "go there" and ask that question would have put our auditors on the spot and embarrassed me at the same time (because I knew they couldn't answer it without it being perceived by some as consulting :o).

Maybe that's just me, and maybe I'm assuming way too much of the quality profession in general. :mg:


Too many people worry about this. Please, ask anything you like!

You are paying for the audit, and should not stifle your questions. You ask whatever you want, and a good auditor will know what he can and can't say. They can and will graciously comment and answer in an appropriate manner. And, if they are not a good auditor, then don't bother asking, because their answer probably wouldn't be very substantive anyway.

... It seems to me that if they wanted absolutely no specific advice being given, they would have said "...development, implementation or improvement..."


I have been witness audited at least seven or eight times, in all the main standards (TS, ISO, QS, ISO 14001). I gave plenty of answers to questions, tried to keep it relatively general, tried not to give advice, and never had a finding on it. Clients benefited and the auditors accepted it.

I don't want to make a client do it exactly the way I would do something, I want them to do it their way. I learned here on Elsmar that is a much better way. I am happy to make sure clients understand what the standards require, so they are in a better position to determine the best way.

Wow!

You're right about this. I've audited folks that were intimidated to the point of being a clam because of their past experiences and I don't really understand that. I like people to ask questions and maybe even help keep me on track by challenging me. I don't know how many of the folks I've interviewed are here (in the Cove) but I believe they'd back me up on that. I've found that looking at items of contention from their point of view has had positive results and turned into a win-win.

Wanna communicate with me? Be honest to yourself and to me, I'm not the enemy, and I'm successful only when you are.

If you don't agree, tell me and we'll re-visit the problem. I'm on your clock/dime, not mine.

You need clarification? Clarification isn't a problem, telling you "how" is, so please don't expect that. I'll show you exactly what is required from the standard/document, not from my interpretation, and I'll use the whole standard/document, not just a piece of it.

We'll see where this Thread goes..........

Good points, Randy. The key is freedom of communication. I have difficulty with those organizations who prepare their personnel with 'audit survival tips' which often builds an auditor's suspicion that things are being 'hidden' - since the flow of information about their process/responsibilities etc. becomes 'stilted' - like that 'clam' you talked of. I have seen situations where those 'tips' were posted around the place - not obviously - just because people couldn't remember what they should say etc. How's that for sending a message to an auditor - "you're gonna have to work for this one.....!"

My experience and strategy is that people should be comfortable talking about their process/work etc. If they can't, management have a problem anyway, let alone passing an audit. My tack has been always 'overwhelm' the auditor with your knowledge and confidence in what you do! Don't be cagey' about answering, take control and blow them away with how things are going. Anything else will be a game and set a poor tone for the audit......

I have difficulty with those organizations who prepare their personnel with 'audit survival tips' which often builds an auditor's suspicion that things are being 'hidden' - since the flow of information about their process/responsibilities etc. becomes 'stilted' - like that 'clam' you talked of. I have seen situations where those 'tips' were posted around the place - not obviously - just because people couldn't remember what they should say etc. How's that for sending a message to an auditor - "you're gonna have to work for this one.....!"


I've actually asked folks "What did they tell you not to talk about?" and have had that question answered. Many times the result is very similar to Art Linkletter and "Kid's Say the Darndest Things":lol: In the background I can hear the groans and "Oh S**t"

I think the best thing auditees can do for themselves is to have clear expectations about the purpose of the audit and auditor behavior and make those expectations known to the auditor and CB.

Here are a few:

Treat our people and organization with respect or expect to be shown the door.

The purpose of the audit is to assess whether the system complies with the standard. It is not to get help running the business.

The system may or may not be convenient to audit. If it is, great. If not, do the job you are being paid to do anyway.

The auditee gets the benefit of the doubt.

The auditor bears the burden of proof.

Document your OFI's.

If there's a nonconformance, write it. Otherwise keep your critical comments to yourself.

"Objective evidence" does not necessarily mean a documented record.

Don't pretend that things you like to see are required by the standard.

Take the time to familiarize yourself with the system. Read some of the flippin' documentation.

Ask how things are done, rather than making assumptions.

Just Remember three points:

1) Answer to the question brief and straight

2) Best foot forward

3) Don't argue even you are right, try to convince

Regards

T S Rao

I do have a standard presentation that is used during meetings that communicates common questions asked by an auditor. I tell people to be honest and direct and just answer the questions.

I have been guilty of communicating "dont try to answer a question that has not been asked - only because I have seen employees try to talk about areas they are not responsible for and it can create a nightmare. I am a fence rider on this issue:)

My experience and strategy is that people should be comfortable talking about their process/work etc. If they can't, management have a problem anyway, let alone passing an audit. My tack has been always 'overwhelm' the auditor with your knowledge and confidence in what you do! Don't be cagey' about answering, take control and blow them away with how things are going. Anything else will be a game and set a poor tone for the audit......
Andy,
Here's what I usually tell folks about openness.
1. Answer all the questions honestly and fully. Don't try to fool the auditor and don't try to hide things.
2. Let the auditor see whatever records he asks to see (possible exception: sensitive personnel records and the like)
3. Don't volunteer information.
4. Don't speculate about areas/processes/things that you don't know about.

I suppose point 3 might cause some people to take the "clam up" approach, but that's not the intent. I believe the auditor should be free to guide the discussion and able to ask appropriate questions as well.

How many times have you had to say, "That's very interesting, but what I really want to know about is <something else>"

On the other hand, I really like Randy's question.:lol:

I've actually asked folks "What did they tell you not to talk about?" and have had that question answered. Many times the result is very similar to Art Linkletter and "Kid's Say the Darndest Things":lol: In the background I can hear the groans and "Oh S**t"

And you got to the other half of this topic (IMHO):yes:. There is a duality here that should be addressed. One is the individual working with the auditor. The other, is how the individual has been instructed to work with the auditor by their supervisor, or someone else in the organization.

Good points Cliff.

Since we're basically speaking of the role of the CB auditor, my experience is that since they don't have/take time to review sufficient information about the businesses processes etc., before launching into interviews, they can only ask somewhat vague questions - or sometimes very, very specific ones which relate to their prior experience of system weaknesses.

Since this first 'vague' line of inquiry leads to people trying to 'fill in' as a way to get to a point of understanding of what's being sought by the auditor, it is both frustrating and time consuming for the auditee. Set against a background of 'only answer the bit you're responsible for' increases tension in an already 'high anxiety' situation! I'm sure we all know where things can and do go from there.

That's why I advocate the auditee being coached, before hand, to take control of the audit, by leading off with a clear explanation of the process, their responsibilities, what to do when things aren't 'quality' etc.

This avoids the need to 'fill in' as a way to get the auditor comfortable with what they're wanting to hear and reduces the stress on both parties. Indeed, after using this technique numerous times, I've seen CB auditors walking away very pleased with what they'd seen and heard (it didn't involve any hard work to pry out information) and reported the results very favourably to management........

Andy

You raise an interesting point about document review. It seems like the CB auditors don't do that anymore. I wonder why.

I see your point about providing information. I think the perfect audit question begins with the words, "Please tell me about <whatever>..." This invites the interviewee to give the response you're talking about.

My auditor is pretty good about maintaining the line. However, like Cliff said - there was no document review prior to the audit so the entire first day was very vague questions.

I basically tell the people to stick to what you are directly involved in. If you are not involved, simply tell the auditor that you are aware of the process but generally not directly involved. It seems to work. Our auditor seems to be pretty good at realizing when he has reached the end of a person's responsibilities as well.

That's my :2cents:

John

My auditor is pretty good about maintaining the line. However, like Cliff said - there was no document review prior to the audit so the entire first day was very vague questions.




If the auditor can only ask vague questions, there is probably a lack of experience or skill on their part. I don't spend a lot of time on documents, either, but it is because they rarely say much of any consequence. Let's write meaningful procedures, people.

I do use the flowcharts, turtles and process documents. They are useful. Procedures come into play when there are complexities or issues to answer.

Good points Cliff.

Since we're basically speaking of the role of the CB auditor, my experience is that since they don't have/take time to review sufficient information about the businesses processes etc., before launching into interviews, they can only ask somewhat vague questions - or sometimes very, very specific ones which relate to their prior experience of system weaknesses.

........


Actually, the training for CB auditors now emphasizes that audits should begin with a review of the important metrics and the manangement review.

It is intended to be a sort of report card overview and should influence adjustments to the audit plan if issues are noted. I've been promoting that for years. It always influences the directions I pursue.

Also good is Cliff's suggestion to "...so, tell me about your process." I also frequently will just watch an operator run their process for a few minutes, to start. Far more meaningful than just reading empty procedures.


...That's why I advocate the auditee being coached, before hand, to take control of the audit, by leading off with a clear explanation of the process, their responsibilities, what to do when things aren't 'quality' etc....



Good coaching can be very useful if the intent is honorable. I applaud the idea. However, if the coaching leans toward sneaky tricks on how to get through an audit, those never end well. There shouldn't be any need for that.

My auditor is pretty good about maintaining the line. However, like Cliff said - there was no document review prior to the audit so the entire first day was very vague questions.

I agree with Helmut on this one; it's a skill issue.


I basically tell the people to stick to what you are directly involved in. If you are not involved, simply tell the auditor that you are aware of the process but generally not directly involved. It seems to work. Our auditor seems to be pretty good at realizing when he has reached the end of a person's responsibilities as well.

That's my :2cents:

JohnIt's good your auditor knows when to move on. Not all do. People should remember that they have the right, as guides, to tactfully step in and let the auditor know that he's talking to the wrong person. This actually helps the auditor, as it keeps him from following false trails.

...

...People should remember that they have the right, as guides, to tactfully step in and let the auditor know that he's talking to the wrong person. This actually helps the auditor, as it keeps him from following false trails.


By all means. It helps us not waste audit time chasing down deadend trails. That does not do anyone any good.

I should qualify that our production processes are relatively simple. He spent much more time in the offices with the proj man and design people (we are a custom house) than with production. I wasn't able to be with the auditor when the office was audited but what I was told was that it was much more detailed.

Here's my rules:

1. Treat the auditor as a person - ie, with courtesy
2. Mutually respect each other's position & role - particularly that they have a job to do.
3. Know, understand & abide by the 'rules of the game'. That includes understanding that if you have a difference in viewpoint, you can & must debate it via reference to the Standard and showing them evidence, not expecting/hoping they'll 'be nice to you'. It also includes knowing the Standard well.
4. Finally, expect to receive value from them, as you would with any other service provider.

Good auditors can provide useful info, they can help you understand the Standard better (I've lost count of the many, many knowledgeable and experienced auditors who have helped me along the way), they can provide an objective viewpoint on how your organisation is doing, both vis a vis the Standard and even in relation to some others (duly confidential of course!!).
I love observing good auditors at work - I never fail to learn something.

But if you're not getting that value in some way, you've got the wrong organisation or the wrong auditor. Time to take effective corrective/preventive action!

I have argued strongly with a few auditors. I have complained on a couple of rare occasions. I have urged clients to request different auditors at times, and/or consider switching certifiers. Yes, there's a few bad apples around (very few). And yes, there's some fairly ordinary ones. C'est la vie. Doesn't mean we have to just suffer/put up with it.

Here's my rules:

1. Treat the auditor as a person - ie, with courtesy
2. Mutually respect each other's position & role - particularly that they have a job to do.
3. Know, understand & abide by the 'rules of the game'. That includes understanding that if you have a difference in viewpoint, you can & must debate it via reference to the Standard and showing them evidence, not expecting/hoping they'll 'be nice to you'. It also includes knowing the Standard well.
4. Finally, expect to receive value from them, as you would with any other service provider.

Good auditors can provide useful info, they can help you understand the Standard better (I've lost count of the many, many knowledgeable and experienced auditors who have helped me along the way), they can provide an objective viewpoint on how your organisation is doing, both vis a vis the Standard and even in relation to some others (duly confidential of course!!).
I love observing good auditors at work - I never fail to learn something.

But if you're not getting that value in some way, you've got the wrong organisation or the wrong auditor. Time to take effective corrective/preventive action!

I have argued strongly with a few auditors. I have complained on a couple of rare occasions. I have urged clients to request different auditors at times, and/or consider switching certifiers. Yes, there's a few bad apples around (very few). And yes, there's some fairly ordinary ones. C'est la vie. Doesn't mean we have to just suffer/put up with it.


excellent advice, Jane...:applause:

I agree with Helmut on this one; it's a skill issue.

It's good your auditor knows when to move on. Not all do. People should remember that they have the right, as guides, to tactfully step in and let the auditor know that he's talking to the wrong person. This actually helps the auditor, as it keeps him from following false trails.

Yes, I should have added that as rule #5:

5. Be a guide when required, not just a passive and mute observer. That includes tactfully telling the auditor if they're chasing a dead end, asking the wrong person, or have misunderstood something.

As Cliff and Helmut point out, it helps the audit process. Sometimes it helps to ask them what information they are seeking, or what trail they're following, so you can assist if necessary. Of course if they currently do have the right person to ask, then your role is just to observe at that point. But if you can assist, there's nothing wrong with guidance: eg, suggesting to the auditee that they demonstrate some document/records that you know exists, but that they may not realise is being sought.
No auditor ever knows your business as well as you do, and good auditors will be happy to listen to guidance if it helps. Whether they choose to act on it is their choice, and of course if you're just trying to 'talk your way out of trouble' they'll probably discard or discount it. But if you can help make links for them, elucidate, throw extra light, help them understand, they'll most often rightly appreciate it and can move on, refocus, make a note of who they DO need to ask the question of, and move on.

Hello
The attached is a power point presentation for preparation of working with auditors & preparation your self and team to deal with the External auditors.
Actually this power point accumulated from the information gathered from the cove
So, thanks to the cove
Regards;
Zkshazly

Hello
The attached is a power point presentation for preparation of working with auditors & preparation your self and team to deal with the External auditors.
Actually this power point accumulated from the information gathered from the cove
So, thanks to the cove
Regards;
Zkshazly

Thank you so much for the helpful powerpoint presentation! It is greatly appreciated!:yes:

I saw about three-five really good subjects for threads/discussions within your presentation. At some point if you're willing, maybe you would consider starting a thread with your power point, and then we could offer up tips, suggestions, etc. of improvement to your powerpoint.

The point would be maybe we could all work together and have a really good power point presentation that we could all use if we need it. :agree1:

Again, thank you.