We were issued an N/C for internal auditing.
Criteria cited was TS 16949 - 8.2.2 The organization shall conduct internal audits... to determine whethere the qulaity managemetn system...conforms to planned arrangement...

Objective evidence cited:Internal audit Checklist form 036 page 1 (audited on 1/23/09) had questions where the auditor did not record the evidence looked at and decision as to compliance as called out on checklist.


So, he found checklists in out internal auditing records where not every question on the list was addressed. Does this matter that every question is answered if the objective of the audit can be ahcieved without it? I tend to agree that proper planning shoudl produce a proper checklist as a roadmap to achieve the audit objectives. Some use the checklist as a question pool.

Thoughts?

Checklists are only guides, most times I don't use any checklist at all unless there are some specifics I want to pursue ralating to a previous issue. TS16949 does not require a checklist. Does your internal audit prodedure specify the use of checklists? If so then it needs revised as an option.

We were issued an N/C for internal auditing.
Criteria cited was TS 16949 - 8.2.2 The organization shall conduct internal audits... to determine whethere the qulaity managemetn system...conforms to planned arrangement...

Objective evidence cited:Internal audit Checklist form 036 page 1 (audited on 1/23/09) had questions where the auditor did not record the evidence looked at and decision as to compliance as called out on checklist.


So, he found checklists in out internal auditing records where not every question on the list was addressed. Does this matter that every question is answered if the objective of the audit can be ahcieved without it? I tend to agree that proper planning shoudl produce a proper checklist as a roadmap to achieve the audit objectives. Some use the checklist as a question pool.

Thoughts?

Well, one point of view might be that the internal auditor didn't know if this applied to the audit - could be they weren't 'competent' or missed the question/check on the list.......all kinds of things come to mind.

Did you know the point was missed, in review of the checklist? Was it applicable to the audit scope? If it was in the checklist, who decides when it's not applicable? Did the int. auditor just miss it? Lots of questions.....

This is one of the (many) problems with using 'canned' checklists. IMHO, each auditor should prepare their own. You'd get a better idea then, if they understood the audit assignment.

I probably wouldn't have written an nc before posing these types of clarifications with you, I would have dug a little deeper, but then, I'm not your auditor......

We were issued an N/C for internal auditing.
Criteria cited was TS 16949 - 8.2.2 The organization shall conduct internal audits... to determine whethere the qulaity managemetn system...conforms to planned arrangement...

Objective evidence cited:Internal audit Checklist form 036 page 1 (audited on 1/23/09) had questions where the auditor did not record the evidence looked at and decision as to compliance as called out on checklist.


So, he found checklists in out internal auditing records where not every question on the list was addressed. Does this matter that every question is answered if the objective of the audit can be ahcieved without it? I tend to agree that proper planning shoudl produce a proper checklist as a roadmap to achieve the audit objectives. Some use the checklist as a question pool.

Thoughts?

For those questions not addressed, where they simply not asked or the specific evidence was not recorded? It could have been recorded some where else on the checklist or page. I make some pretty creative records of my audits... arrows, boxes, *, notes etc.... I don´t write the objective evidence always neatly by the question (that is when I actually use a check list...

I agree with Andy and Ralph and think a little further checking should have been done... but we where not there....

We were issued an N/C for internal auditing.
Criteria cited was TS 16949 - 8.2.2 The organization shall conduct internal audits... to determine whethere the qulaity managemetn system...conforms to planned arrangement...

Objective evidence cited:Internal audit Checklist form 036 page 1 (audited on 1/23/09) had questions where the auditor did not record the evidence looked at and decision as to compliance as called out on checklist.


So, he found checklists in out internal auditing records where not every question on the list was addressed. Does this matter that every question is answered if the objective of the audit can be ahcieved without it? I tend to agree that proper planning shoudl produce a proper checklist as a roadmap to achieve the audit objectives. Some use the checklist as a question pool.

Thoughts?

What was the actual NC, you gave the clause and the finding but not the NC.
Please give it and then I can reply.

N/C
NC-01 The Internal audit checklist form 036 page 1 is not always
completedly filled out by internal auditors (audit conducted on 1/23/09).

N/C
NC-01 The Internal audit checklist form 036 page 1 is not always
completedly filled out by internal auditors (audit conducted on 1/23/09).
Unless your company has a documented requirement to always completely fill out the checklist, the auditor is off base.

Thanks.
This NC is well out of the guidelines of the IATF for a NC.!!!!!
The NC must refer to the standard or your procedure not just rewrite the objective evidence.

Thanks guys.
Our procedure does not state that it has to be completely filled out. Even if it did, that's not the criteria he cited.......

Yeah, this is a difficult situation because there were SEVERAL other things the were N/C that were noted that weren't written up. He could have picked any solid one.
This puts us in compromising situation if we protest the one he did write up....he'll remember next time he's here..
We'll probably just write up the corrective action, etc and let it go....even though I don't like it!

<snip>This puts us in compromising situation if we protest the one he did write up....he'll remember next time he's here..

The appeals processes is there to challenge an auditor and their findings. If they take it personally, than I would report it to their Boss.

If you don't agree with it, challenge it.

Yeah, this is a difficult situation because there were SEVERAL other things the were N/C that were noted that weren't written up. He could have picked any solid one.
This puts us in compromising situation if we protest the one he did write up....he'll remember next time he's here..
We'll probably just write up the corrective action, etc and let it go....even though I don't like it!

Another Thought, if you are going to use checklists how do you determine whether or not the item should have been checked or not?

Do you leave it up to the Internal Auditor?

While perhaps it is not specifically required, if you are going to use a checklist, I believe it is important to know what was checked and what was not!

Yeah, this is a difficult situation because there were SEVERAL other things the were N/C that were noted that weren't written up. He could have picked any solid one.
This puts us in compromising situation if we protest the one he did write up....he'll remember next time he's here..
We'll probably just write up the corrective action, etc and let it go....even though I don't like it!

Not at all! If you have an auditor who goes around with a 'chip on their shoulder' regarding contested findings - and you see evidence of that in your next audit - have them removed from the audit! Check out the requirements of ISO 19011 - open minded is in there, I believe.......

Please don't roll with this type of thing. As a rep for a CB, it's in our (collective) interests not to have clients 'put up' with auditors' bias and lack of objectivity. Indeed, if it's one of our auditors, I really want to know who it is........

By 'letting it go' you are participating in a slow but inexorable slide of credibility of the whole certification process, which musn't be allowed to happen.

Another Thought, if you are going to use checklists how do you determine whether or not the item should have been checked or not? To me this is the key. If one uses a checklist, unless there is a guideline which can be cited, my expectation is every item would have some type of information entered, even if it's just an 'NA' (i.e.: Not Applicable). I have NEVER left a checklist item blank unless I could cite a procedure or other guidance document telling me what to do, if not the rational as well.

As to whether it is technically a nonconformance or not is debatable, but if no one could explain to me why some items were addressed and some were not I would have a 'bad' feeling about the system and/or the auditor. However, if the auditor can explain why some things are filled out and why s/he didn't fill out other things, I'd be a happy auditor.

To me this is the key. If one uses a checklist, unless there is a guideline which can be cited, my expectation is every item would have some type of information entered, even if it's just an 'NA' (i.e.: Not Applicable). I have NEVER left a checklist item blank unless I could cite a procedure or other guidance document telling me what to do, if not the rational as well.

.

Slightly :topic:
All checklists, forms etc are in fact Work Instructions. Not completing all fields with at least a N/A shows that the instruction was not completed.

Yup - That has always been my way of looking at it. *Unless there is a document which addresses the specific fields in a form and which tells when a field, and which field(s), may be left blank (such as a form that has multiple uses).