:confused: One External Auditor with the age of 31 came for an audit. He is very professional. I never see such an auditor style even from the experienced auditor.

In short,he added some value to the audit where our experienced people does not agree on that.. Reason you know very well.. Resistance.. How come a 30 can advise or audit 60 ?

Everyone in the top is having an image of auditor is of age atleast above 45 and must have good industrial experience. say for example.. To audit a QMS hospital a senior doctor should come.. To audit a mechanical industry, an auditor with mechanical engineering experience is must..

After the audit, my management called me not to invite such type of auditors . Reasons is as follows. We should maintain the image when we are auditing the senior persons..

My opinion is : ISO is a management standard. The auditor should have auditing experience ,aware of ISO clauses,good attributes,a good knowledge of the business process to be audited.. these are more than enough to audit the QMS, No need of QC - Mechanical Engineer with Lead Auditor Experience shall do the audit of mechanical works..

I need your comments..

This is exactly the case happned only yesterday.
Manager experince 25 years whereas, the auditor age in the visicnity of 31 years roughly. :bigwave:

I entirely agree with the point regarding the age of the auditor. What matters is the in-depth knowldge and understanding of the requirements.I have seen auditors of 45 highly qualified yet 'bookish' with an 'I know better than you all' attitude. I have also seen an auditor of 29 years age yet with maturity and good grasp of the requirements. The former was an M.Tech in the same field as the client industry (mechanical engineering) while the latter was a Computer Applications qualifed and not an engineer.

Having said so I also think some useful experience in the industry/enterprise under audit is very necessary for the auditor (irrespective of his/her age) though there could be some intelligent people who have learnt the ropes from books/literature or from forums like this one.

Jupitor

Hi Suresh Kumar,

I have slightly modified the title of your thread - pls let me know if its fine with you.

I am enclosing the Job posting for 3 Lead Auditors Required for Oil and Gas Company in Saudi Arabia (http://www.workabroad.ph/report_job_listing.php?ajid=168521) - is it not strange that they want 25 year old Lead auditors :D

Your management needs to be mature enough to understand that age is no longer a criteria for certain things. Its true that auditing matures with experience but it does not mean that all 25 year old or 30 year old youngsters do not have knowledge :)

...and besides, although the standard mentioned about the minimum educational attainment requirements (which can be related to minimum age), the standards does not relied on “age” but on the competence level of the auditor i.e. the ability to apply the knowledge and skills gained through the education, work experience, auditor training and audit experiences…

…well, you cannot really avoid this kind of “judgmental” thing… but as long as the auditor is meeting the minimum requirements of the standard, there is nothing ethically wrong, when a 31 year old auditor is auditing a 50+ year old manager…

…it’s only in the mind of an egoistic person…

:2cents:

Hi Suresh Kumar,

I have slightly modified the title of your thread - pls let me know if its fine with you.

I am enclosing the Job posting for 3 Lead Auditors Required for Oil and Gas Company in Saudi Arabia (http://www.workabroad.ph/report_job_listing.php?ajid=168521) - is it not strange that they want 25 year old Lead auditors :D

Your management needs to be mature enough to understand that age is no longer a criteria for certain things. Its true that auditing matures with experience but it does not mean that all 25 year old or 30 year old youngsters do not have knowledge :)

Dear Ajith,

Thanks for your modification which sounds good.. the example you quoted is a nice one.. its a eyeopener for the experts of white hair sitting at the top.. but anyway, we have to live with type of resistance wherever you goes and whenever u try to change the people of doing work.. i had a good experience in dealing with this high profile people in my career..

I used to quote those people as an examples whenever i do the awareness programme on QMS..

Once again, thanks for your comments..

Will revert

:confused: One external auditor with the age of 31 came for an audit. He is very professional. I never see such an auditor style even from the experienced auditor.

In short,he added some value to the audit where our experienced people does not agree on that.. Reason you know very well.. Resistance.. How come a 30 can advise or audit 60 ?

Everyone in the top is having an image of auditor is of age atleast above 45 and must have good industrial experience. Say for example.. To audit a qms hospital a senior doctor should come.. To audit a mechanical industry, an auditor with mechanical engineering experience is must..

After the audit, my management called me not to invite such type of auditors . Reasons is as follows. We should maintain the image when we are auditing the senior persons..

My opinion is : Iso is a management standard. The auditor should have auditing experience ,aware of iso clauses,good attributes,a good knowledge of the business process to be audited.. These are more than enough to audit the qms, no need of qc - mechanical engineer with lead auditor experience shall do the audit of mechanical works..

I need your comments..

In short,he added some value to the audit where our experienced people does not agree on that.. Reason you know very well.. Resistance.. How come a 30 can advise or audit 60 ?While life experience undoubtedly is a factor to consider, there is no age requirement, of course.

It is also a question of perspective: In a previous orgainzation which I left over 15 years ago (which would place me in roughly the same age bracket as the auditor in your example), I was considered "old", and was in fact sometimes refered to as "the old guy" :D. Today, 15+ years on, I work for an organization with a much higher average age, and yes: I am considered to be quite young by our standards. :lol:. Fortunately we are now having a generation shift with a number of people retiering and new truly young people entering the fray every year... About time too: That young image of mine will not hold up for closer scrutiny much longer. :cool:

Anyway: It is all about competence, not age.

/Claes

Just my :2cents:..

Many years ago, my Dad (now happliy retired) and I worked together for a military / aerospace contractor. He was the toolmaker / machinist with about a million years of experience, I was the new quality kid on the block with much less experience but a decent education in the latest and greatest methods. As a team we were darn near unbeatable when it came to problem solving.

Don't discount the value of a younger person with a fresh education and a younger person's sense of innovation, but also don't discount an older, more experienced person's wisdom. If you must choose between the two, you won't go wrong with either choice but in my humble opinion, the best choice is a situation where there is teambuilding between both sorts.

Now I am the semi-old guy who knows I still have plenty to learn from the new kids even as I teach them the meager bits I have learned.

Anyway: It is all about competence, not age./Claes

I could not agree more !!

Anyway: It is all about competence, not age.
Claes

Bingo. :agree1: But it sounds to me like there might be a cultural issue at work in the OP's company.

Bingo. :agree1: But it sounds to me like there might be a cultural issue at work in the OP's company.

You are right Jim - "white hair" is respected and sometimes these individuals might feel insulted to hear from "black haired" people :tg:

You are right Jim - "white hair" is respected and sometimes these individuals might feel insulted to hear from "black haired" people :tg:

I wonder how they might feel about "blonde hair" individuals like myself. :confused: Maybe I'm OK though, because sometimes "lack of hair" is similar to white hair...

I wonder how they might feel about "blonde hair" individuals like myself. :confused: Maybe I'm OK though, because sometimes "lack of hair" is similar to white hair...

:topic:

Its like this -

White hair or Bald (lack of Hair) or slightly bald = Lot of respect

Blond Hair = less respect than previous one

Black Hair = symbolizes youth so less respect

Any other color, say Pink, Green, Blue (dyed) = Absolutely NO Respect

:biglaugh::lol::biglaugh::lol::biglaugh::lol:

Bingo. :agree1: But it sounds to me like there might be a cultural issue at work in the OP's company.

What I mean by people with white hair is aged people.. i.e above 50.. there is no cultural issue as you think..

:topic:

Its like this -

White hair or Bald (lack of Hair) or slightly bald = Lot of respect

Blond Hair = less respect than previous one

Black Hair = symbolizes youth so less respect

Any other color, say Pink, Green, Blue (dyed) = Absolutely NO Respect

:biglaugh::lol::biglaugh::lol::biglaugh::lol:


What a creativity?:applause:

...and besides, although the standard mentioned about the minimum educational attainment requirements (which can be related to minimum age), the standards does not relied on “age” but on the competence level of the auditor i.e. the ability to apply the knowledge and skills gained through the education, work experience, auditor training and audit experiences…

…well, you cannot really avoid this kind of “judgmental” thing… but as long as the auditor is meeting the minimum requirements of the standard, there is nothing ethically wrong, when a 31 year old auditor is auditing a 50+ year old manager…

…it’s only in the mind of an egoistic person…

:2cents:

Competence is education, trainings, skills and experince.
Don't you think that if that is the criteria than work experince/ audit experince maybe lacking in 31 year old. :)

Competence is education, trainings, skills and experince.
Don't you think that if that is the criteria than work experince/ audit experince maybe lacking in 31 year old. :)

How much experience do you want? I'm 30 and have been auditing for 8 years, have had my lead auditors certificate (which doesn't necessarily mean anything) for 6 of those years and have been leading audit teams internally and externally ever since.

Now 8 years may not be a huge amount of experience but I believe it is enough to bring competence to my role, whether it is enough experience to be an auditor for a CB is a different matter and i would think it probably isn't for me.

In this time I have highlighted issues and helped with CA's that have resulted in improved on time delivery, reduction in field failure rates, reduction in customer complaints and improvements in our design activities.

I can also point to direct savings that companies have made as a result of systems I have established which would pay my salary many times over.

I also bought an entirely new set of skills to the QA department where I work by having the knowledge to automate routine reports and making use of the data that exists in databases that wasn't available before.

Age doesn't mean a thing by itself and a young person with the right attitude, aptitude and a sprinkling of experience can bring a lot more to an auditors role that some old guy who has been working in the industry for forty years who thinks he has seen it all. It's also quite possible to have a 50 year old auditor with less experience than a 31 year old, or a 21 year old for that matter.

Anyway what I think I am trying to say is judge people on their performance.

Competence is education, trainings, skills and experince.
Don't you think that if that is the criteria than work experince/ audit experince maybe lacking in 31 year old. :)


Amanbhai,

In your defined auditor's selection criteria, weightage for each factor differs.. Auditors auditing the process not the people.. So, the Weightage criteria may be like this..

1. Education - 40
2. Training - 30
3. Skills - 20
4. Experience - 10
Competancy = 100

Let us audit the process and not the people.. I started this quote since this misconception is rooted in most organisations which surely affects the quality of the audit..

Since I was in college waiting tables, I learned very quickly that it is not wise to make judgment decisions based on how anyone looks. In Self-Defense, the hardest thing to teach kids and adults is a Stranger is someone you don't know. They don't look different; they may/ may not be a different color, dressed like a bum, suit, etc. They are simply someone you don't know.

It's a boring, blatant fact that a "young" individual does not have years and years of experience. However, that does not mean they are not capable of giving you a killer audit. They may be so attuned and interested in your process that they provide value you would not have thought of.

If anyone is in school/academics, instructors/professors seem within this same vein. When I started, I wanted to take classes with the "big names"-tenured professors, Chairs, Dean, etc. It was not always what I expected. Many of them (not all) had not kept up on the recent literature, were hardly there, had not been out in academics, etc. Some of my best professors have been adjunct, and professors just starting their academic career.

I say you have a right to have a polite, professional auditor; don't settle for less. But hold overall judgment until you see the finished product.

I have seen auditors that had only a very short time in the auditing field do a much better job that some that have audited for eons. Why is that? Because of their experience in the industry/related industry. Don't ask me to come to your facility and audit for medical or aerospace. I don't know jack. I'm definitely old enough that most people whould respect me as a pro if I walked into your facility. Looks can be deceiving, and even experience doing audits is not the only qualifier we should look at.

LIke others, I've seen very good auditors and very bad (alas) and just plain ordinary. I'd prefer to focus on competence and performance - including relevant experience - rather than just age, which is limiting.

But if the organisation being audited isn't comfortable with a younger LA, then I think they have the right to ask for someone older. I think it's a short-sighted attitude, but it comes down to what they are comfortable with.

There's really not much point in having a fantastic LA if, on the other side of the table at the closing meeting, the senior management is sitting there thinking 'who does this young kid think they are?' Because they may not be able to hear what's being said, for focussing on the messenger. Pity.

I have seen auditors that had only a very short time in the auditing field do a much better job that some that have audited for eons. Why is that? Because of their experience in the industry/related industry. Don't ask me to come to your facility and audit for medical or aerospace. I don't know jack. I'm definitely old enough that most people whould respect me as a pro if I walked into your facility. Looks can be deceiving, and even experience doing audits is not the only qualifier we should look at.

Mrs. Maiden,

I don't agree with your point.. I can audit medical or aerospace industry, if I am familiar with the business process. There are certain ways to audit the unknown process..

First we can go to such type of audits as a observer.. after some few audits, you may be competent enough to do audit..

Competence matters how you are assessing the process with respect to standards and how you are adding value to the system..

It's my opinion..

Mrs. Maiden,

I don't agree with your point.. I can audit medical or aerospace industry, if I am familiar with the business process. There are certain ways to audit the unknown process..

First we can go to such type of audits as a observer.. after some few audits, you may be competent enough to do audit..

Competence matters how you are assessing the process with respect to standards and how you are adding value to the system..

It's my opinion..


Thank you for proving my point
First we can go to such type of audits as a observer.. after some few audits, you may be competent enough to do audit..


You cannot be competent without some sort of exposure.

It wasn't in the role of auditor, but I have experienced the same... standoffishness because of my gender. It is a cultural issue. The culture could be based on society's norms, and/or the organization's leadership-developed atmosphere in the company.

In either case, it's the Management Rep's role to facilitate the external auditor's process and clarify, at the right time and place and in an appropriate way, that the value depends on ability to focus on what's important:

1) The auditor is correct/accurate (or not)

2) The auditor is insightful (or not)

3) The auditor brings a useful perspective (or not)

4) The auditor is properly prioritizing on what is important (or not)

... and so on. These are aspects we should be focusing on, not the compare/contrast of the person against our expectations. The Management Rep should guide that effort.
:2cents:

I agree, Jennifer. THe best audit I ever had was done by a female auditor from BSI Inc. - drafted into the UK cos BSI UK didn't have enough auditors. Gayla (I think) was from an aerospace background, probably 10-15 years younger than me but asked damned "hard" questions. She was hard but fair, obviously knew the standard but was prepared to listen to counter argument based on the differences between her background and our industry; which was not aerospace. As a result, we got good "added value" from the audit and began to question our own views of why we did things.
In short, the value you get from an audit depends on the auditor's competence and not their age, gender or colour. Ageism, sexism and racism surely have no place in whether or not your system meets the required standard - and how you report back to the Senior Management on what the auditor found; both good and bad.

Seems I am the exception. In the sense that I had a bad experience with a young auditor.
She was by the book, by the word, letter by letter. She issued a major one.
Reason and details:

Audit from NSF.
Cause: quality documents pertaining to raw materials used in manufacturing shall be archived for a period of minimum 3 years.
Reality: 6 months.
Why: because the material in question (steel wire) was in a 3 months in-out cycle and after the 1st manufacturing step every traceability was lost.
So I argued that it was pointless, space and and time wasting to keep electronic files/paper files longer than 6 months.

Nope...the damn standard was her Bible (no offence intended, mea culpa in advance).
She was a pure at heart auditor with no manufacturing experience.
As much as I am an open minded guy I can hardly accept someone going by the book, checklist in left hand, crayon in right hand...checking boxes on paper.

Good auditors are mature in their judgement. Maturity is, for many, developed over time. Maturity is associated with applying wisdom.

Some people get older, but not wiser, nor more mature. Others display maturity and wisdom beyond their (chronological) age. This community has examples of both cases.

Maturity, not age, should be what we look forward in auditors.

Seems I am the exception. In the sense that I had a bad experience with a young auditor.
She was by the book, by the word, letter by letter. She issued a major one.
Reason and details:

Audit from NSF.
Cause: quality documents pertaining to raw materials used in manufacturing shall be archived for a period of minimum 3 years.
Reality: 6 months.
Why: because the material in question (steel wire) was in a 3 months in-out cycle and after the 1st manufacturing step every traceability was lost.
So I argued that it was pointless, space and and time wasting to keep electronic files/paper files longer than 6 months.

Nope...the damn standard was her Bible (no offence intended, mea culpa in advance).
She was a pure at heart auditor with no manufacturing experience.
As much as I am an open minded guy I can hardly accept someone going by the book, checklist in left hand, crayon in right hand...checking boxes on paper.


Mr. Sorin,

I disagree with your view. I am auditing different fields for more than 8 years. I never use checklists, but i feel the difference of increase in the effectiveness of the quality audit whenever i use checklist..

So,We should not underestimate the auditors' competance based on the checklist they used.. infact checklist is a tool for an audit .. which will be professional too..

As a auditee,instead of focussing on auditor's expertise during the audit, we have to focus on his commendations and observations,findings etc., Ultimately,he is there to facilitate u.. +

In your case, u said real retention period is 6 months then you specified in your procedure as 3 years.. better u change ur procedure..

In my opinion,

Young auditors are good in probing,thinking,analysing the facts and we can see the effectiveness with respect to the audit..but we cant expect this from experienced auditors..(aged or old people)

I recommend this combination in the audit team, One young energetic auditor and one experienced auditor.. the former one for effective execution and latter one for effecient execution...that mix is good..

All are just my opinions..

I do believe that the auditor is usually trained and experinced in the field he/ she audits.
Before we start auditing, auditor required to fill a form that shows his particular area of expertise that we possess. e.g. Engineering background can not perform hospital audit, and so on. These auditing companies which hire auditors are also went through tough assessments by themselves befoer they get accreditation.
So, therefore, I suppose those who are auditing externally are competent enough.

Deference to age sounds like a very Japanese cultural thing to me.

Its neither good or bad - it just the way things are in your company.

It works like magic for Toyota because the "aged ones" are also the most competent, they can do and have done all the jobs and now live to teach others.

It works much less well for other companies where old just means old.

I took a course in international business and the advice was to try to understand the culture and history of the country you are working in. Realize you can't change it (nor do you have any right to expect them to adopt your views - its their culture not yours)

So you need to make this situation work for you. Ask leadership what type of auditor would make them comfortable, one from whom they could take advice, then arrange for them to interview several candidates.

The good news is an "old and skilled" auditor will find everything your young auditor did and more, and management is now prepared to listen, since they asked for it and they got it.

Good luck and have fun with this one.

Hmmmm I'm thinking Marc should be on the short list?

Being professional, having experience and knowledge, should be the only considerations. Knowing the particular industry would probably make the auditor more relaxed. But the standards are the same. Document Control in a cable industry and a cup industry would still be to the standard. Does the manager really understand or have direct knowledge of ISO standards? Even an old dog can learn new tricks, sometimes from a pup.

Document Control in a cable industry and a cup industry would still be to the standard.

That's one nail spot on the head....and I do agree on that.
What I do not like is when you cannot have an exemption when the exemption is clear.

Understanding or having an industry related background is not very relevant.
What is missing most of the time is the brain. Or at least the part that is able to think :cool:

Amanbhai,

In your defined auditor's selection criteria, weightage for each factor differs.. Auditors auditing the process not the people.. So, the Weightage criteria may be like this..

1. Education - 40
2. Training - 30
3. Skills - 20
4. Experience - 10
Competancy = 100

Let us audit the process and not the people.. I started this quote since this misconception is rooted in most organisations which surely affects the quality of the audit..

agree.. for me age does matters but is not most important...
The only what matters are skils of the auditor.. I'm only 29 age but I know what I expect from my suppliers.. I'm not auditing their "age" experience or so.. but processes... if the results are in line with my company objectives for our supplier...

MB

I agree with the exemption understanding. I'm 53,but yes if all the major attributes of a professional auditor are present, the age does not bother me.
I recently went thru my 52 external party audit,but was my first food service type. This audit to me was very easy compared to an ISO 9000 audit.It was very relaxed too with an experienced auditor that was very professional but at the same time with the ability to put every one at ease. Age was about 60.