In the intial audit report, teh Auditor had written:
*****
The Management Representative needs to be more versed with the requirements of the standard as well as the organization's own system documentation. Adherence to the specified product monitoring requirements & controls over the outsourced activities need to be ensured.
******
I am the MR and I was under the impression that the Auditor is saying that MR should have more knowledge of the standards as well as the company's system documentation. WHICH I AM AWARE OF NOW.

But now my Unit head is telling me that I should know the standards as well as I should know how teh company is functioning i.e. right from inquiry received for a particular product till the payment is received from the customer. that means i should know the business of the company. WHICH I KNOW.. but now the unit head has made me confused..

should i answer about the company's system documentation i.e. all the procedures such as corrective action / preventive action / Non conformity / control of documents / control of records/ internal audit. OR should i tell the auditor about how we are generating the business. SEE I DONT WANT THE AUDITOR TO GIVE ME A MAJOR NC IF HE FINDS THAT I HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD WHT THE PREVIOUS AUDITOR HAD WRITTEN.

SO can you help me out.

bye

ashwini

Was this a nonconformance from a registration audit?

If so, what standard and element was this written against?

:agree:From;V.J.Brahmaiah
Bangalore-India

Thr MR should know: a)Requirement of the applicable system standards
b)All manuals and procedures of his company
c)Expert in documenting and controlling documents
d)Internal a
Besides other managerial capabilities and communication skill.
He need not necessarily be aware of all bussiness aspects of the company.
udit

A senior level Person trained as a lead assessor is ideal for the position of MR.
But the irony of the system is that the standard doesnot stop you from nominating a senior gen.manager who does not know much about requirements of ISO 9001 STANDARD as name sake MR.
Besides other managerial capabilities and communication skill.
He need not necessarily be aware of all bussiness aspects of the company.
-V.J.Brahmaiah:agree:

Originally posted by brahmaiah
<snip>
But the irony of the system is that the standard doesnot stop you from nominating a senior gen.manager who does not know much about requirements of ISO 9001 STANDARD as name sake MR. <snip>

The standard does not stop you from nominating any employee on the position of MR. However, he is also responsible for ensuring the establishment, implementation, maintenance and reporting of the QMS.

And if he/she is doing all of this without knowledge of the standards or his QMS documentation, the ship already has a hole, sooner or later it will sink! Unless, he has hired a QA person (ghost MR) to take care of the system! :lol:. He will still sink the ship when faced with the audit.

Ciao. :cool:

While I agree it is important for the management rep to understand the requirements of the system, I am questioning the audit finding until I learn if this was an internal or external audit, what standard the organization was being audited against, and which element the finding was written against.

Or, was this just a comment? It reads like one, because this write up is inferring the MR is responsible for "Adherence to the specified product monitoring requirements & controls over the outsourced activities."

If the specified product monitoring requirements and controls over the outsourced activities are not being adhered to, the writeup should be addressing that/those process owner(s). If there is no process in place that establishes this control or the process is not being followed, the writeup should address that. If there is no audit of the process or the auditing was ineffective, the writeup should have addressed these factors. Unless the MR is responsible for these factors, he/she should not be handed the nonconformance.

So I ask again: was this a registration audit? Was this a nonconformance? Which standard was being audited?

Originally posted by Jennifer Kirley

While I agree it is important for the management rep to understand the requirements of the system, I am questioning the audit finding until I learn if this was an internal or external audit, what standard the organization was being audited against, and which element the finding was written against.

Or, was this just a comment? It reads like one, because this write up is inferring the MR is responsible for "Adherence to the specified product monitoring requirements & controls over the outsourced activities."

If the specified product monitoring requirements and controls over the outsourced activities are not being adhered to, the writeup should be addressing that/those process owner(s). If there is no process in place that establishes this control or the process is not being followed, the writeup should address that. If there is no audit of the process or the auditing was ineffective, the writeup should have addressed these factors. Unless the MR is responsible for these factors, he/she should not be handed the nonconformance.

So I ask again: was this a registration audit? Was this a nonconformance? Which standard was being audited?

While the OP's auditors statements may be slightly misleading due to the following second sentence related to product monitoring requirements, it is clear that the OP is questioning only the first statement related to the MR.

I think both statements are independent of each other except the fact that it is the responsibility of the MR to ensure that "adherence to the product monitoring requirements & controls over the outsourced activities need to be ensured."

Ashwini, if you can just clarify this and Jennifer's comments.

Ciao. :cool:

While I agree it is important for the management rep to understand the requirements of the system, I am questioning the audit finding until I learn if this was an internal or external audit, what standard the organization was being audited against, and which element the finding was written against.

Or, was this just a comment? It reads like one, because this write up is inferring the MR is responsible for "Adherence to the specified product monitoring requirements & controls over the outsourced activities."

If the specified product monitoring requirements and controls over the outsourced activities are not being adhered to, the writeup should be addressing that/those process owner(s). If there is no process in place that establishes this control or the process is not being followed, the writeup should address that. If there is no audit of the process or the auditing was ineffective, the writeup should have addressed these factors. Unless the MR is responsible for these factors, he/she should not be handed the nonconformance.

So I ask again: was this a registration audit? Was this a nonconformance? Which standard was being audited?
FIRST I WILL REPLY TO JE.NNIFER'S COMMENTS:

1. While I agree it is important for the management rep to understand the requirements of the system, I am questioning the audit finding until I learn if this was an internal or external audit, what standard the organization was being audited against, and which element the finding was written against.

Jennifer, when I had posted this thread, it was when the initial i.e. stage-1 audit was done. it was registeration audit. We are going in for ISO 9001:2008 standardization.

Whatever the initial auditor had written in his interim audit report, was just a comment.

Acutally the first scentence : The Management Representative needs to be more versed with the requirements of the standard as well as the organization's own system documentation. was meant for me i..e. MR. this the auditor had said because at the time of intial external audit, i was not allowed by my unit head and the coordinator to reply to any queries raised by the auditor. they were of the opinion that as this being the first external audit as an MR, I may be nervous and may not be able to put my view forward whcih will then result for the auditor to give me more NCs. Whenever and whatever questions, the auditor used to ask me & all the time he was lookng at me because he is expecting reply from me after all... but before I could open my mouth, the unit head used to reply. Unit Head had already gone through the external auditors in his previous company so that's why he knows how to answer to them.


and another scentence: Adherence to the specified product monitoring requirements & controls over the outsourced activities need to be ensured - was meant for the HODs of various divisions )i.e. process owners). I had metntioned this two scentences togethr becuase even though HODs are responsible for monitoring the product requirements, I as an MR and as per the Central Procedure and in the quality plan of all the divisions where in the work instructions there was an SOP on monitoring and measuring of product, I should have insisted on these HODs to adhere to it (as per the external auditor)... Inspite of my repeated e-mails, personal talks, and also warnings from the Unit Head, none of the HODs had adhered to teh product monitoring only because they thought that it is all an time consuming process... in the external intial audit itself, the auditor had leafed through the quality plan of other divisions .. and he had seen this process and he waned to verify from the unit head how we are going about it.. when the unit head could not give evidences for the same, as this was an non confermance, we were issued NC for this.

Yes, Sam you are right 100% as usual.

Jennifer, hope your queries got answered.. but even if any other doubt is there, do let me know.

bye

ashwini