In the September 2002 customer specific requirements for TS16949, GM states "Internal auditors should be qualified as recommended in ISO 10011-Part 2 as a minimum." ISO 10011-Part 2-1994 requires completion of secondary education [no problem], training [no problem], and min. 4 years practical workplace experience, at least two of which should have been in quality assurance activities [Big Problem].

I can understand this requirement as intended in 10011 for full time auditors, but what was GM thinking when requiring this for internal auditors? So we effectively eliminate almost everyone from any other department, eliminating "fresh eyes", cross-functional teamwork, and tons of diverse expertise, not to mention alienating other departments from buy-in to the QMS. Am I missing something here?

There is a 2002 version of 10011 being issued for review. Has anyone had the opportunity to examine it and compare requirements? :bonk:

I haven't yet. Anyone else?

Can't help you with the document and I'll keep my eyes and ears open. However, focus on the "SHOULD" and don't make the mistake of making it a SHALL. I agree, it seems a bit much for internal audits.

ISO 190011 - "Guidelines for quality and/or environmental management systems auditing. First edition 2002-10-01".
Key word " GUIDELINES"
"Para 7.4.4 Levels of educatrion, work experience, auditor training and audit experience.
Organizations should establish the levels of the education, work experience, auditor training and audit experience an auditor needs to gain the knowledge and skills appropriate to the audit programme by applying steps 1 and 2 of the evaluation process 7.6.2.
Experience has shown tht the levels given in Table 1 are appropriate for adutors conducting certification or similar audits. Depending on the audit programme, higher or lower levels may be appropriate."

In other words. it's your call.

On the other hand,those that are suppliers to Ford shouild really have a concern about auditor requirements.

There is a 2002 version of 10011 being issued for review. Has anyone had the opportunity to examine it and compare requirements? :bonk:
As Sam implied above, ISO 10011 has been withdrawn and replaced by ISO 19011. See the ISO website here. (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueWithdrawnDetailPage.CatalogueWithdrawnDetail?CSNUMBER=17941)

Sam is also correct on the Ford requirements being a lot tougher than GM's. Are you also a Ford supplier?