Opinion instead of fact - Auditor opinion with no requirement in the standard

No details at this time (but I may add later!) but I am currently spending a lot of time dealing with audit findings written up on the basis of auditor opinion with no requirement in the relevant standard.

Having spent (too) many years in this business I had hoped to see an improvement in audit standards over the years with auditors identifying the audit criteria accurately (the "shall") and quoting the objective evidence of what they have seen and how it fails to comply with the criteria.

My question is this: For audit non complainces (that you are required to take action on) are the findings based on fact and referenced back to the standard element that identifies what you are required to do?

Yes, it should be fact. I think the below thread is an excellent compliment to yours regarding actually writing up the non-compliance. I think Sidney's attachment (and others input) would address your frustrations.

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=19745&highlight=writing+non-compliance

well - a requirement might not necessarily come from the standard.

It might be a requirement of your own documentation that you are not following. But even then the auditor should point out what document and what section of that document you are not complying with.

I've found all the auditors I've dealt with were pretty fair as far as ISO9000, FDA, OSHA, and EU PED. So I voted "accurate".

In our case we not had much problem with this. The forms used by our auditor have a section for the clause and if this isn't filled in I will question it. The 2 or 3 times it has happened I was able to resolve it with the auditor without any problem. Usually, if he cannot pin it to a specific Shall, he'll downgrade it to an observation and we can respond/or not as we see fit.

James

I have 2 answers for this question:
1-ISO/TS16949 3rd party registrar auditors-yes, they issued NCs based on objective evidence and clause involved.
2-Customer 2nd party auditors-findings and severity based on opinion, and desire to make a return trip to the sunny south. (so they can go to Myrtle Beach not far from here, at their company's expense.)

In the end all we are actually doing is supplying our opinion supported by evidence.

"The system has been effectively established and meets requirements" is nothing more than than another way of saying "In my opinion they are doing what they are supposed to be doing and here is the evidence I have identified to support my decision"

ralphsulser said:

I have 2 answers for this question:
1-ISO/TS16949 3rd party registrar auditors-yes, they issued NCs based on objective evidence and clause involved.
2-Customer 2nd party auditors-findings and severity based on opinion, and desire to make a return trip to the sunny south. (so they can go to Myrtle Beach not far from here, at their company's expense.)

Click to expand...

My opinion exactly (although this being Milton Keynes substitute the banks of the Grand Union canal for Myrtle Beach).

I noticed a significant change in the wording of TS 16949 non-conformities after the auditor went through his last requalification. They are now much more precisely tied to the process and specific TS requirement.

We've yet to have a value adding customer audit. They don't raise much, if anything, in the way of non-conformities, the auditors just want to get their report completed as quickly as possible and get out. We provide a really miserable lunch so they don't come back too often.

Randy said:

In the end all we are actually doing is supplying our opinion supported by evidence.

Click to expand...

You said it all here, Randy. We look at the objective evidence - and raise findings if the facts indicate that a requirement is not being met. At the end of the audit we assess the findings and come up with a balanced recommendation (or opinion if you like) on the organization's readiness for certification.

The reason for the poll - and I am pleasantly surprised at the way it is develoing - is that if the findings aren't based on this evidence then the recommendation is based totally on the auditor's opinion and certification becomes a "like / don't like" decision - surely not acceptable?

The only auditors that quote the relevant section of a standard are our notified body.

I find the quality of Customer and Internal auditors to be very poor.

Many auditors raise "non conformities" based on the differences between their "good" system and the fact that we are different "non conforming or different".

Paul - could you share with us the "non conformities".

I find that the way to deal with this issue is first require any finding to state the requirements and the source.
The age old question of "where is that called out".
Next step would then to be ensure that there is a common understanding of what is stated then how it is required ( contract flow down, print , spec, internal system, ect).

At this point it is usualy clear if it is a condition of noncompliance or not. After all how do you truely fix something you do not understand.

The other thing is for individuals issuing a finding there is usualy a reporting structure above them if you find that you agree to disagree.