Need help with an issue that came up during our Stage 2 TS audit. A Process Owner was unavailable and another member of the department 'filled-in'. Is there a defined way to identify the difference between the process owner and a substitute, that would not claim responsibility of the owner? Hope this make sense? :frust:

Thanks, wally

Need help with an issue that came up during our Stage 2 TS audit. A Process Owner was unavailable and another member of the department 'filled-in'. Is there a defined way to identify the difference between the process owner and a substitute, that would not claim responsibility of the owner? Hope this make sense? :frust:

Thanks, wally

There's a requirement in ISO/TS about "Responsibility and Authority."

Stijloor.

Yes, but it doesn't cover what to do if the actual process owner is not available? Who stands in? And in what capacity? Do you go up the chain of command?

In our case, we had the next responsible person in the department respond to audit questioning about the processes.... we got killed, because he kept responding that he doesn't perform the process owners job, he's just filling in.

Yes, but it doesn't cover what to do if the actual process owner is not available? Who stands in? And in what capacity? Do you go up the chain of command?

In our case, we had the next responsible person in the department respond to audit questioning about the processes.... we got killed, because he kept responding that he doesn't perform the process owners job, he's just filling in.

There is no requirement in the standard (or elsewhere that I know of) to have "process owners" available during 3rd-party audits. What is required is that someone who knows what's she's talking about is available to answer the auditor's questions and provide the evidence the auditor is looking for.

Thanks, Jim.

So if I understand it correctly, it really doesn't matter who sits in for the process owner.
But, they do need to be clear that their realm of responsibility and accountability isn't the same as the process owner. :truce:

Wally

Thanks, Jim.

So if I understand it correctly, it really doesn't matter who sits in for the process owner.
But, they do need to be clear that their realm of responsibility and accountability isn't the same as the process owner. :truce:

Wally

Wally,

The expectation is that if someone with defined responsibilities and authority is not present (out sick, on vacation, etc.), you can not shut that process down and possibly inconvenience the customer. So, the question is: "who then takes care of that process?"

Especially critical when you have "one-person processes."

Stijloor.

Thanks, Jim.

So if I understand it correctly, it really doesn't matter who sits in for the process owner.
But, they do need to be clear that their realm of responsibility and accountability isn't the same as the process owner. :truce:

Wally

It should be as simple as telling the auditor, "Sammy, the Grand Poo-bah of this process, is (in jail, out sick, whatever) and Sally will answer any questions you might have." So long as responsibility and authority have been properly defined, it shouldn't matter whether the person who has ultimate responsibility for the process isn't present for the audit so long as someone else knows the process and can answer the auditor's questions.

In fact, if I were an auditor in that situation, I would be favorably impressed that a second person was familiar enough with the process to be able to stand in for the process owner.

In fact, if I were an auditor in that situation, I would be favorably impressed that a second person was familiar enough with the process to be able to stand in for the process owner.

Jim, I think this goes to the crux of the issue. When the process is running, the person running the process must be competant, and the company should be able to demontrate competantcy through training, education, etc.

When the process is not running, it is likely that process records would have the Operator's name on them, providing a starting point for an audit trail as well, even when the process is not running.

I have always defined a "designate" as a backup to the "normal" process owner. This ensured that when training took place (or skills assessments were completed) BOTH people were trained on and tested on the same skill sets. Obviously, one would not expect the "designate" to be at the same level as the "normal" process owner but they do need to be competent.

If the department manager or process owner is not around, there should be a process or a system in which a representative of that process shall took his/her place. Prior audit, process owner and their audit representatives are identified. IMHO, this is an issue of cross-training.
Raffy