My organizations' top management would like to change the way we conduct our QMS audits. We currently maintain a dedicated auditor staff, who's responsibility is to conduct QMS, process, and product audits. The dedicated auditors are ASQ CQA certified and have formal audit training to include ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949, quality tools (such as FMEA's, control plans, 8D, MSA's), etc. My concern to use personnel from support / manufacturing operations is the time needed for training and to conduct the audits. We ran a very lean organization and I see potential issues with the management in these areas freeing up personnel to conduct the audits especially since they are needed in their day-to-day jobs.

I'm pulling a list of pro's and con's together for both auditor approaches and would appreciate any inputs from the forum regarding experinces with the use of support / manufacturing personnel as auditors.

using operators as auditors can be a problem trying to find the time to train, and to perform the audits, you can also end up with burnout from your folks having to wear too many hats.. Scheduling both training and audits can also be a problem. The good thing is that if you have operators that truly understand the system, you have automatically gained supporters for the QMS, nothing like having built in champions for the cause. I've never worked with a dedicated auditing staff, so that is about all the information I can share.

I agree with Steelmaiden's comments - especially about having champions for the system around the place. I often make the point on courses that good internal auditors make good auditees. They understand why certain questions are being asked and they realise (hopefully :rolleyes:) that the auditor is not trying to catch them out.

When I have seen dedicated auditors they tend to be better at audit technique as they get more practice and they do not have the problem of making time available. The downside is that they can become detached from practicalities and start to act more like policemen - not all I hasten to add but I have seen it happen.

They're needed in their day-to-day jobs?

You mean if they get run over by a bus or fall off the edge of the world their work wouldn't or couldn't get done? It's amazing how critical people are to the overall operation of an organization (and so under appreciated and under compensated as well).

The old "they have improtant duties" excuse has more bull in it than a Kansas City stockyard.

Part of management committment is displayed by the resources it allocates, and people are a resource.

My full time auditing position was created because they wanted someone who could do adequate follow up, and to connect the dots between what was observed from one audit to the next. As full time versus collateral duty work, I assess management systems and not just processes.

Great point Jennifer, its the bit that I see 'least well done' (a polite version!) in many organisations. They get people to do the audits and they often raise N/C's and observations but they forget to do the follow-up.

At our company we had non-dedicated auditors during implementation and for awhile longer.
Then Management decided that I would become a dedicated auditor. (no one else wanted to touch either auditing or ISO)
Just a few months ago Quality mgr wanted me to get an audit team together.

First, I approached people that I thought had the necessary qualificatons/ characteristics. Of course the quality manager "suggested" some to meas well.
I trained two teams of 4 for 16 hours ea.
Then I Redid the audit schedule (added audits) to accomodate more auditors.(since it had been made to accomodate just 1 auditor)

They ALL say that they are too busy with their jobs to audit, mad: :frust: (but I do have have 1 auditor that will audit anyway. (This person was around prior to implementation, is a champion - also is a crackerjack auditor):cool::)

I think the rest just wanted to get out of working their day to day job.

QC manager told me to keep audit schedule also would not let me do their audits so that that they could audit. :confused:
Now survellience is 6 weeks away (and I'm now 2 months behind) :mg: and I finally got green light to do their audits.:frust:

From reading your post it sounds like you do have the support of Top management. I don't really feel that I did.

If I had a do over I would have gotten assurances from top management and floor supervisors that If I someome got trained then they would perform internal audits. I would also have communucated this to the people that I aasked to consider becoming internal auditors.

Management don't seem to give a rip as long as the day-to-day gets done.

That is all that I can say from experience. :2cents:
Hope you have better luck than I did.

Management 'don't give a rip' - because in many cases the internal audits never gave them anything to 'give a rip' about.......

Management don't support anything that doesn't give them some (personal) benefit. Neither do we in our lives at home or work!

I'm going to guess that the audits were only based on ISO requirements, had a schedule that wasn't linked to any of the (major) issues that were going on in the business etc. and were, as a result, not seen to support management in the achievement of their objectives.

Until those things are fixed - you'll get the behaviours (and the auditors) you described......

Management 'don't give a rip' - because in many cases the internal audits never gave them anything to 'give a rip' about.......

Management don't support anything that doesn't give them some (personal) benefit. Neither do we in our lives at home or work!

I'm going to guess that the audits were only based on ISO requirements, had a schedule that wasn't linked to any of the (major) issues that were going on in the business etc. and were, as a result, not seen to support management in the achievement of their objectives.

Until those things are fixed - you'll get the behaviours (and the auditors) you described......


You guess correctly. :o Don't know how to make schedule (or give input to the QM) so schedule can be linked to issues going on around here. I can, look into more than the ISO requirements. :confused: :thanks:

You guess correctly. :o Don't know how to make schedule (or give input to the QM) so schedule can be linked to issues going on around here. I can, look into more than the ISO requirements. :confused: :thanks:

We've got a number of threads where the idea of linking the audits to 'status and importance' can help you. Run a search or look towards the bottom of this page to see related threads - Good luck. PM me if you want some more ideas.....

It's a BIG soapbox of mine!;)

There are two perspectives with this topic; one is management probably wants to cut costs and one way they see that is to eliminate full-time auditors and give their responsibilities to others already getting paid to be at work working, the other is top management not understanding what goes into auditing correctly and effectively.

Either way it's a up-hill battle to combat the forces of evil that most top management represent...:notme: Depending on the size of the organization a full time auditor or staff of auditors is warranted but during economic downturns everyone wants to cut costs and if they (top management) does not see benefit to the audit process to justify the costs then they will want to cut costs in that area. It's all about the math unfortunately; being blinded to the hidden numbers that failing systems and lack of effective controls can lead too.

Just my initial thoughts on this....feel free to kick me around if you think I am way off base...

Just my initial thoughts on this....feel free to kick me around if you think I am way off base...

Well Tom. I'm pulling my boots on.........:lol:

All you say is good and true, however, if audits were done with results that could be shown to save money, then the cost issue may not actually be one after all.

One thing I've learned (since living in Michigan) is that audit management has to learn to speak the language of business, not ISO clauses! Also, I spent a lot of time listening (while driving around Detroit) to a clinical psychologist (Dr. Joy Brown, am 800) who basically says that if you have a problem with someone's behaviour, just telling them won't make them change - you have to change your behaviour!

So, audit management might bitterly complain that 'management don't understand', 'won't find the money for it' or similar, but chances are, no-one ever did anything with audits/auditing to be taken seriously!

Who really cares what 'ISO Says'? - we never hear it mentioned on the cable financial news networks, do we? Yet, many (in Quality) hold it as some kind of "Sword of Damocles" over management! Nothing could be further from the truth!

You won't get any support until you have a cause worth supporting - and you have to show that, from the front! O.K - get your marching boots on.........:lol:

Andy - you are correct; but if management actually paid attention to waht audits are and what they are used for they would support them with open arms. It's an organization with a good culture that has management understanding the audit process.

However, when it comes to cutting costs the best culture in the world will go sour. I equate it to the financial bottom line is the finish line of a long race, not the starting line, yet in times of low profits it becomes the starting line...it's backwards thinking...'we can't spend any money until we make some money'...meanwhile the system and support functions fall to he!! and people start loosing thier jobs because of poor performance.

Tripping over dollars to save nickles is the quickest way to go out of business; yet companies keep doing it. When I win the mega millions and open my own business I will be so smart from watching all of the idiots out there ruin their businesses....(I hope so anyway...now all I have to do is win the lotto and we will find out....boy it's going to be fun).:lmao:

First, congratulations on even having dedicated auditors.

My experience is that non-dedicated auditors is practically like having no auditors unless they are well screened before being selected, well trained and that the management chain will support the time and energy auditors under their command will need to do a good audit.

You will also need the authority to review and disipline the auditors for inadequate audits. The auditor will also needtobe involved on follow-up.

Thanks to all for your inputs. My management has decided on the non-dedicated approach for internal QMS audits. Will be an interesting upcoming year to launch this new direction.