Dear All,

Does anyone have the table used by Certification Body to define the man-day hours of an Auditor x number of employees in a company? Where does this table come from?

Thank you in advance,

Alekra:bigwave:

I know of Guide 62 which provides tables linking man-days with number of employees.

For which type of audits? There are different tables.

But, in reality the tables are only a "Guidance" since ISO 17021 went into effect. There are some changes coming but not real soon.

Why do you need them?

Does anyone have the table used by Certification Body to define the man-day hours of an Auditor x number of employees in a company? Where does this table come from?The "tables" are available in the IAF documents hyperlinked below.

Please note that, in the US, ANAB accredited CB's were informed by ANAB to keep using the IAF Guidance documents to Guides 62 (QMS) and 66 (EMS) via Heads Up # 130. IAF Documents for the Consistent Application of ISO/IEC 17021 (http://www.anab.org/HTMLFiles/docs/HeadsUp/HU130.pdf)

IAF GD 2:2005 Guidance on the Application of Guide 62:1996 (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/549378.IAF-GD2-2005_Guide_62_Issue_4_Pub.pdf)
(Issue 4, issued on 15 December 2005; application from 15 December 2006)
All IAF Members are required to comply with the IAF guidance on the application of ISO/IEC Guide 62:1996 (General Requirements for Bodies operating Assessment and Certification/Registration of Quality Systems), Issue 4, before 15 December 2006. IAF Accreditation Body Members are required to evaluate the operations and planning of accredited bodies to ensure that full implementation will be in place before 15 December 2006. The guidance is intended to ensure that all certification/registration bodies accredited by IAF members are demonstrably competent to operate the accredited programs. Accreditation bodies that are members of the IAF MLA ensure that the certificates issued by certification/registration bodies accredited by them are equivalent to certificates issued by bodies accredited by other members of the MLA.

IAF GD 6:2006 Guidance on the Application of ISO/IEC Guide 66:1999
(http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/107931.IAF-GD6-2006_Guide_66_Issue_4_Pub.pdf)(Issue 4, issued on 15 August 2006; application from 15 August 2007)
Revised to incorporate guidance on Advanced Surveillance and Reassessment Procedures (ASRP) and Computer Assisted Auditing Techniques (CAAT) as well as temporary sites.

ISO/TS 16949 has a rigid table of man days which is found in the "rules" published by IATF

For which type of audits? There are different tables.

But, in reality the tables are only a "Guidance" since ISO 17021 went into effect. There are some changes coming but not real soon.

Why do you need them?

Because "audit man-days" affect audit fees?

Stijloor.

Thank you for all the answers!

Yes, man-day hours define the fees ($$$$)...

We will have a re-certification in ISO 9001 (2008 version) in July, and as we have 120 employees it was planned 5 days. In other company I have faced a similar situation but it took 3 days.

I will check the criteria in the links above.

Regards and nice 2009!

We will have a re-certification in ISO 9001 (2008 version) in July, and as we have 120 employees it was planned 5 days. In other company I have faced a similar situation but it took 3 days.Please note that it is not simply a matter of plugging number of employees in a table. The tables/charts contained in the IAF Guidance to guide 62 and 66 are the starting point for the determination of required auditor days. The methodology requires further analysis of the system to be assessed. Maturity, complexity and past performance are all valid reasons for adjusting the auditor days required.

According to IAF guidance, a re-certification audit would normally last 2/3 (two thirds) of the time expected to be spent during a certification audit.

Please note that it is not simply a matter of plugging number of employees in a table. The tables/charts contained in the IAF Guidance to guide 62 and 66 are the starting point for the determination of required auditor days. The methodology requires further analysis of the system to be assessed. Maturity, complexity and past performance are all valid reasons for adjusting the auditor days required.

According to IAF guidance, a re-certification audit would normally last 2/3 (two thirds) of the time expected to be spent during a certification audit.

This system permits a CB to calculate days in a manner that will allow them to underbid their competition. Thus compromising the quality of the audits. I like the IATF's sytem better because of the "rules" that have been estblished for audit days.

This system permits a CB to calculate days in a manner that will allow them to underbid their competition. Thus compromising the quality of the audits. I like the IATF's sytem better because of the "rules" that have been estblished for audit days.Yes, you are correct. Some CB's stretch their justifications for audit-day reductions and require lower audit-days, in order to win the business. During audits of the accreditation bodies, however, if such situations are discovered and the CB can not adequately justify such reductions, they will be written up.

If you like the IATF approach, you will also like the revised IAQG methodology, to be released in conjunction with AS9104-1. The only acceptable reduction for AS9100 (9110/9120) audits will be for not being design responsible.

Hi,

Please follow the link and you'll get the latest guidelines issued by IAF (International Accreditation Forum)

tga-gmbh.de/share/files/626978.IAF-MD5-2009-QMS-EMS_Audit_Duration_-Pub.pdf

(prefix www) It did not allow me to post links as I'm using for the first time.

Hope this helps you.

Cheers!

Krish

I feel that guidelines for man days are just guidelines! these guidelines are not strictly to be followed. Man days may vary depending on the nature of processes, business, size of the organization, etc.

See also this thread
Auditor days for ISO 9001:2008 "re"certification audits (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=32998)

Hey,

Guess you missed to open the document.:rolleyes:

1) The title itself is self explanatory as 'mandatory document'.
2) Inside the document, reference is made to ISO/IEC 17021
3) The word guidelines implies the broad set of rules and the flexibility within it. This means under what conditions the reduction in man day duration is permissible and up to what extent, etc.

Some CB operate at the lower end of the man days bandwidth to be economical to customer, while few other CB hover closer to the max limit to avoid the risk of an abbreviated assessment and then add value to client's management system. This at times makes the latter uneconomical at the instance of certification. But on the longer run, the investmnet in the systems is well reaped through the latter and NOT the former, who just helps you get that piece of paper on your wall and not much of a systematic improvement in your processes.

Increasingly with busy work schedules, even the client is least interested in having a thorough audit with a perception of knowing all internal things and can at a later date (which never comes) plan to correct the situation. Thus a longer audit (though within the bandwidth) is felt 'uncomfortable' and there needs to be a delicate balance of time and depth of assessment with an eye for the budget under control.

A careful selection of a CB of repute to be strict is like choosing a doctor who insists you follow the medication than someone who is very 'practical' enough to accommodate lackadaisical approach.

Cheers!

Krish

I feel that guidelines for man days are just guidelines! these guidelines are not strictly to be followed. Man days may vary depending on the nature of processes, business, size of the organization, etc.

It depends on your definition of 'strictly', I guess!

Those Cb's who cannot justify not 'strictly' following the guidance will put their accreditation at risk and jeopardize their clients certificates.

I'd be very careful about using any supplier who, under commercial pressure to cut prices, put the customers business at risk.............:notme: