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

[Helmut Jilling]

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?

I'm late entering this thread, but, for what seems like the 47th time... RAB/ANAB and IAOB require that both registrars and organizations MUST audit using a process approach based on the processes defined by the organization.

This requirement may have started a little slow a few years ago, but there is no doubt or confusion anymore. Anyone still auditing by clauses is not following the rules and will eventually be written up. A registrar still doing this is inexcusable.

[Sidney Vianna]

In Reply to Parent Post by hjilling

I'm late entering this thread, but, for what seems like the 47th time... RAB/ANAB and IAOB require that both registrars and organizations MUST audit using a process approach based on the processes defined by the organization.

I don't disagree with you, but just like registrar auditors have to stick to the requirements, so must the accreditation body auditors. So, in order for ANAB to "enforce" the process approach to auditing, this should be documented as a requirement somewhere. I can not find it. ISO Guide 62, the IAF Guidance to Guide 62, ANAB procedures, Heads-Ups, Advisory Notices. I can not find it. Do you know where ANAB has documented such requirement?

[Helmut Jilling]

In Reply to Parent Post by Sidney Vianna

I don't disagree with you, but just like registrar auditors have to stick to the requirements, so must the accreditation body auditors. So, in order for ANAB to "enforce" the process approach to auditing, this should be documented as a requirement somewhere. I can not find it. ISO Guide 62, the IAF Guidance to Guide 62, ANAB procedures, Heads-Ups, Advisory Notices. I can not find it. Do you know where ANAB has documented such requirement?

It is a good question, and for the life of me, I don't understand why the AB's are so coy about this. They are increasingly adament during witness audits, but so slow and reluctant in actually writing down their expectations. I would like them to simply spell it out clearly, not with veiled, abstract language.

Having said that, the TS rules, 2nd ed., finally is pretty clear. The ANAB published an advisory, Issue 61 (attached), which infers it. But, to date, the strongest clear push I have seen is the witness audits are almost anal in their insistence on it.

Can't attach a copy. It is already available at http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=15116
It is all the way back at the 3rd post on that thread.

[Sidney Vianna]

In Reply to Parent Post by hjilling

The ANAB published an advisory, Issue 61 (attached), which infers it. But, to date, the strongest clear push I have seen is the witness audits are almost anal in their insistence on it. Can't attach a copy. It is already available at http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=15116
It is all the way back at the 3rd post on that thread.

Thank you. ANAB's HU # 61 is available here. I agree that it encourages the process approach. However, let's remember that the Heads Up document is NOT an enforceable document. It is an expectation communication tool from ANAB. Concerning the IAOB's witness audits, no comments.

From what I gather, after talking with many representatives from different CB's, a good percentage of CB representatives are afraid of challenging AB auditors, just like many organization representatives are afraid of challenging registrar auditors.

Now, it would be interesting to know if the accreditation bodies themselves are performing process based audits, in accordance with this document.

[AndyN]

In Reply to Parent Post by hjilling

I'm late entering this thread, but, for what seems like the 47th time... RAB/ANAB and IAOB require that both registrars and organizations MUST audit using a process approach based on the processes defined by the organization.

This requirement may have started a little slow a few years ago, but there is no doubt or confusion anymore. Anyone still auditing by clauses is not following the rules and will eventually be written up. A registrar still doing this is inexcusable.

fig for any of these requirements and most have no clue who they are, either. Sure the registrars are supposed to comply, but what makes you think the implementing organization is remotely aware of this stuff 'H'?? You are well informed in your roles, but today most folks I teach and consult with couldn't care less about accreditation or other bodies (who have no 'legal' mandate). Try to explain and watch the eyes glaze.......

I agree that early on in the history here in the USA, those things were important to someone, but even less people seem to grasp it now......

Andy