Hello everyone. I know that ISO states that audits cannot be performed by people in the same department/work area, but I was wondering if this applies to all audits. The area I am looking at is ESD auditing. Our ESD program is part of our quality system and the current procedure in place calls for the area supervisors to audit their own area. Is this allowable or should it be changed?

Jim,
You are correct,"auditors shall not audit their own work". However, in your example if the manager is the assigned auditor he cannot audit his own department. The same applies to the supervisor, if he is the assigned auditor he cannot audit his department for ESD compliance.

I am with Sam on this one. IMHO, as the manager/supervisor, you are responsible for the activities of the department including any process therein. I think you would have a hard time convincing any auditor that it wasn't the manager/supervisor's own work. To make the case that the manager is disassociated from the work in the department would really be stretching it.

On the other hand a department employee could audit the department as long as his own work wasn't a part of his audit. Just my opinion but I see a big difference there.

Dave

The question here, IMO, revolves around "work". If I am an inspector on 2nd shift, can I audit 1st shift inspection? Can I audit other 1st shift inspectors’ work? If I am a manager, can I audit ANY part of my department?

To answer these, go to the previous line: “Selection of auditors and conduct of audits shall ensure objectivity and impartiality of the audit process.” To me, this is far more important!

In a three-person shop, not auditing your own work may be very difficult. Meeting the “objectivity and impartiality” requirements may or may not be more difficult.

Terminology aside, I think you are all saying the same thing. The "other Dave's" comments are the most important: how do you assure impartiality and objectivity? Whether it is a process or a department, the auditor has to have objectivity. Now I understand this gets a little fuzzy with very small operations, but for most other organizations cross-departmental (to pick a term) auditors should work. Even though I may "own" a part of the purchasing process, for example, I can still audit the other parts and should be able to audit the interfaces impartially. To Richard's original question, I agree with Dave B that one shift ought to be able to audit another shift in most circumstances for these ESD audits. I would not audit my own shift, however.

Thank you for the information everyone. It seems that this comes down to a question of whose work is being audited. As far as ESD goes, would you be able to audit your area for ESD management since you could argue that it isn't your work? Or is this a real gray area that would be better to just avoid? Thanks.

I don't think that a manager should audit his own dept. as a function of the "official" formal internal audit. Obviously he should be performing audit functions on a daily basis. He must know how his dept / process is operating! But for internal audit purposes, a separate and objective view is what is called for. This is the checks and balances system.

From where I sit, if he is the process owner, department manager, whatever you want to call him, ..if he has reporting responsibilities and accountability for the functioning of that process, dept, whatever,..then it is someone else who must be doing the auditing.

It comes down to "who is responsible/accountable for the successful functioning of this process?" and "who will be responsible for taking corrective action should any be needed based on the audit findings?". If the manager is either of these people, he does not belong in the internal audit role.

Since wording things the right way seems to be an issue I was wondering if this would be acceptable. What if area supervisors did an ESD maintenance inspection each month, and then the overall ESD management of the area was part of our formal internal audit process (and checked by someone else)? Could this same idea also apply to other aspects as well (such as other maintenance programs)? I realize this is probably looking at loopholes, but I am trying to figure out the easiest way for us to do things but still satisfy external auitors.:D

When considering the effective auditing of processes it might well be an excellent idea for the process owner to audit the inputs to the process, as he is effectively auditing his suppliers. This could be very useful.

However I would agree that perhaps he is not best placed to give an unbiased opinion on the effectiveness of his own process, the adequacy of the resources, controls, etc.

Jim Wade said:


Is that what ISO 9001 calls for, Lucinda, or is it just your (no doubt excellent) opinion?

rgds Jim

Ye gads man! Don't make me start quoting ISO 9001 instead of reading it for yourself!:) I know you have a copy of it somewhere all marked up with highlighters and doodles.:vfunny:

9001 does call for the selection of auditors and the conduct of audits to ensure objectivity and impartiality of the audit process. This can hardly be the case if a mgr. (with bonus riding on his process's reported margins) grades his own paper. I'd say he was pretty partial, wouldn't you?

And 9000 defines the audit itself as being an "independent" process. In other words: not a function of day-to-day information gathering which is an identified part of a functioning process, such as a manager might do. It is a process wholly unto itself for a specific purpose.

I sorely lack a copy of ISO 19011 so I can't further explore the definitional technicalities of internal audit, but I do think that I have a fairly clear grasp of the concept and the intent.

A manager is not impartial to his own process or department. IMEO :)

Does anyone know where I could obtain a copy of 19011 to look at? Or do I still have to pay for it even though it's still a draft version? :(

Woohoo:D This just put me over 10 posts. No longer a shy browser :D

Now Richard that would be shameful for any of us to do that;)

You ought to know better than to ask "Professional to violate copyrighted stuff":eek:


PSSST!!! (whisper-whisper)
I've got it in pdf on my computer in the office......but my office is in Barstow, CA and I'm in Spokane for the next 10 days

Jim,
Surely you jest. Manager. objectivity, impartiality, trust are words that go together like water and oil. Maybe in an idealistic world, but it would need to be truly idealistic.
Managers haven't lived up to their expectations in the past. What makes us think that they would change because of a few words in a QMS standard.
Managers do not base their decisions on what is right or wrong, they base their decisions on the EXPECTATIONS of their immediate superior; and so on up the chain. This has been true in the past and sadly it will be true in the future.
And I'm not knocking managers. That's just the way I see it.
"Being a manager is like being on the Survivor TV show; if no one likes you , your off the island."

Sorry Randy. I don't know what came over me. I should be flogged for thinking that draft versions should be available for free :)

If my memory serves, the question is would it be allowable for a manager/supervisor to audit his/her own area of responsibility. I have to partly agree with Lucinda and perhaps others and say that IMHO ideally, in 99% of companies, it would certainly be best/preferred if someone else audited my area of responsibility.

However, in theory would it be allowed by the standard (I suppose as determined by a registrar?) for a manager/supervisor to audit their area of responsibility? Well, here's my take FWIW: So long as I did not audit my own work, if I swore to be objective and impartial, I believe I could (in compliance with the standard) audit my own area of responsibility.

Let's say I manage the calibration department and an audit is being done against 7.6. Maybe I did 10% of the calibrations myself and my technicians did 90% of the cal's. and all of the other work in this area. I believe I COULD do an effective, impartial, and objective audit. SHOULD I? Maybe, maybe not. Could most managers be adequately impartial and objective? Maybe, maybe not.

I believe saying with a broad stroke that all managers can't be trusted to be objective and impartial in this situation is just as wrong as believing that every auditor from another area of responsibility is always going to be perfectly impartial and objective. There are few absolutes in this world.

In summary: Allowable by the standard, yes. Advisable, no.

Just my opinion. I won't attack anyone who disagrees.

Just one more random thought. In theory, because of 8.2.2, is it impossible for a 1 man/woman outfit to be ISO 9001 registered? Or would you just pay an outside auditor to do the internal audits?

I feel a lot of the problem here is that people a focusing on the word Audit and translating that as "find fault". This is the reason we use the word review in our system.

It also involves not thinking of internal audit as replicating what the registrar is going to do, i.e. audit against the standard.

If you think of an internal audit as a chance to naval gaze at your process(es) and look for opportunities to improve it, then the manager is probably a very good person to be involved.

Jim,

I appreciate the comment. If we can't find ways to disagree civilly and respectfully in this forum or this world, neither will last for too long. As long as the bad apples are a small minority we're okay but everyone else has to put up with the fallout from them. Sad but that's life. Just don't throw the first punch my Daddy always said. And, by the way, I think we two have often disagreed in these forums! Anyway...

Maybe I misunderstand your question (sometimes I'm not too bright, either, but I do try) but I don't think it changes my answer. If I am responsible for the "process" of calibration or purchasing, or whatever, I still might not be the ideal person to audit that process. Even if I can completely switch off any tendancy to be biased, it is often good to have a different set of eyes and a different brain look at something. How many times have you "double-checked" a written document only to later have a proofreader or someone else find a mistake that you honestly did not see?

Am I missing something?

Maybe Marc should add a dim lightbulb to the icons!!!!

Jim, you said;
"a) processes are examined and improved by a TEAM

b) such a team comprises - at least - [internal or external] customers and suppliers as well as the people who operate the process (managers included)."

I agree with this concept, but would like to elaborate.

a - the TEAM should be required to post evidence of their compliance to customer requirements (internal/external).
It might be a good idea for the TEAM to achieve a certain rating in order to perform self audits.

b - Good mix. The telephone numbers of the suppliers and the customer contacts could be posted in each process. This was the case at one company I worked for.

As a trained facilitator on the lean manufacturing process I can see how this approach could be effective. Self auditing, even by managers, can work when performed within specific guidelines.

JIm,

Let's see...the standard says the company shall define the methods used to audit -- the standard did not define the exact methods (for a reason?). There is more than one valid way to get to the pub, so to speak. And if a TEAM is doing the audit in your example no one would have to audit their own work in their area of responsibility (I could have Joe Blow audit the calibration work I did and I could audit Joe's work even if we both had some responsibility for the calibration "process"). So far I can't find where you've violated a shall -- if I think of any I'll let you know. If anyone else sees any please holler!

Jim,

Okay. I still don't see any "shall" violations.

Jim,
Attached is a modified version of a checklist that I received at a lean Mfg. class.

Fill in the blanks as to what it would take to become world class, post the results in each process/cell and present to management monthly. A scoring system would neeed to be developed.

Auditing of the process is, for all practical purposes eliminated. Anyone at any given time can see the status of the process.

Now let's try it again with the attachment.