Process Approach beef - Registrar says that we 'should' use the process approach

[Al Rosen]

In Reply to Parent Post by Lee

Don't be fooled the my name - I need to change my User name! (I'm female.)

I could figure that out from your avatar.

[AndyN]

In Reply to Parent Post by Lee

I have a beef. My registrar says that we should use the process approach. But, the registrar schedules audits by clause. When they audit, they audit closer to the clause than the process approach. I don't get it!

So, I am curious if anyone else has noticed this happening in their audits.
Do we need a poll?

Lee:
Choose whatever approach works for the 'scope' and 'criteria' of your audits. Registrars have come under major criticism for doing element audits to show they covered the requirements and that's where the 'rot set in'. Since the accreditation bodies have responded, as Randy points out, the registrars now have to audit by the process approach. Some of it may also be carry over if your auditor does TS 16949 audits.

He's off base, IMHO, stating that you 'should' do anything. Is he saying your audits are ineffective the way they're done? Is it a 'personal' thing? One more point is that you ca become fully 'armed' by having a rationale for a specific approach used to address the scope etc. Without that, you may hear that 'process' mantra again and again........

Andy

[in_cr_ove]

a real situation. happens frequently.
syndrome is called - "my shirt is whiter than yours".
particularly in this case, approach is not an issue.
one demonstration that we give in our training sessions is - "lifting handkerchief".
wherever you pick it from, gradually whole of handkerchief gets lifted.

[AndyN]

In Reply to Parent Post by in_cr_ove

a real situation. happens frequently.
syndrome is called - "my shirt is whiter than yours".
particularly in this case, approach is not an issue.
one demonstration that we give in our training sessions is - "lifting handkerchief".
wherever you pick it from, gradually whole of handkerchief gets lifted.

Could you explain the 'handkerchief' thing...??

Andy

[Sidney Vianna]

In Reply to Parent Post by AndyN

Could you explain the 'handkerchief' thing...??

Andy

As soon as you take the pebble from my hand, grasshopper

[Greg B]

In Reply to Parent Post by Randy

Part of the reason it may look like the audit is being done by clause is that the accreditation bodies must be provided evidence that everything (within the standard) is being covered. At least that's my guess.

Im tend to agree with Randy!

In reality, we (My Company) Internally Audit OUR Process and the External guys (registrar) ensure that we have adopted all the relevant clauses of the Standard. They really don't care what our process is, and nor should they, as that is our responsibility (we are the experts at what we produce and how we produce it)..please don't forget that YOU are responible for the quality of the product you produce... the Registrar is not a QC consultant that comes in and checks every item to ensure that it is good enough for your customer. A registrar ensures that your system is in line with the Quality System certification requirements and if this means that they will check you against the clauses then that is what they will do. Don't ever be afraid to ask your auditor why they are doing something...they work for YOU...they are not government appointments...if you have an issue with them then debate it or just plain talk about it. (gets off soapbox)

[in_cr_ove]

the demonstration is to emphasise that action is more important than the sequence of improvement.
example: where should we start with 5S or, Kaizen?
handkerchief approach says - wherever you start from eventually the whole organisation will be benefited.
hope, it explains the context.

[AndyN]

In Reply to Parent Post by in_cr_ove

the demonstration is to emphasise that action is more important than the sequence of improvement.
example: where should we start with 5S or, Kaizen?
handkerchief approach says - wherever you start from eventually the whole organisation will be benefited.
hope, it explains the context.

Now I get it!

Andy