Process Maps identified as inadequate during registrar's Document audit

[qcman]

During the 1st day of our iso cert audit the auditor wrote up a minor for a weak process map for lack of inputs/outputs. This is my first go at being part of a certification process but worked under qs for many years and admit it is weak. What I am wondering is why were we not given a minor on this during the document audit (off site) during that portion of the audit ? When I asked the auditor this she said they do not go that far into the documents during that part of it

[BradM]

Originally Posted by qcman

During the 1st day of our iso cert audit the auditor wrote up a minor for a weak process map for lack of inputs/outputs. This is my first go at being part of a certification process but worked under qs for many years and admit it is weak. What I am wondering is why were we not given a minor on this during the document audit (off site) during that portion of the audit ? When I asked the auditor this she said they do not go that far into the documents during that part of it

Hello, there! I'm wondering if you might have typed a wrong word somewhere.. Did you get a MAJOR, but thought it should be a MINOR?

Here's my frail line of thinking... If the process map is weak, then maybe the associated procedures might be weak. Certain areas not addressed correctly, others not covered at all, etc.

However... my line of thinking is irrelevant. There should be clear evidence cited by the auditor why this creates significant risk, deficiencies, ineffective system, etc. in your process. Was there any verbiage to the effect?

[BradM]

Interesting... there's another thread going right now regarding process maps:

Examples of process mapping

Don't know if it would be of any interest to you.

[JaneB]

Originally Posted by qcman

During the 1st day of our iso cert audit the auditor wrote up a minor for a weak process map for lack of inputs/outputs. This is my first go at being part of a certification process but worked under qs for many years and admit it is weak. What I am wondering is why were we not given a minor on this during the document audit (off site) during that portion of the audit ? When I asked the auditor this she said they do not go that far into the documents during that part of it

Hard to say without seeing the docs and knowing the background, but a documentation review is usually just intended to establish whether there is a documented system that appears capable of being audited. It's a lot to ask someone to also establish how valid or robust the processes are as well - iot's usually only when they see the actual system itself that they can see. I've had doc reviews come back with an auditor say it looks weak, then change their mind at the actual audit.

[Colpart]

Hmm, I think it is a bit unsatisfactory if the auditor at doc review looked at the process map and did not comment at the time. After all, you are paying for him/her to comment on the suitability of the documented system to meet the requirements of the standard.

I do agree with Jane, it is not really possible to tell how suitable the process map will be in practice but that is not what I understand you to be saying here.

[qcman]

She did say it will be wrote up as a minor because there is no clear link ( on the PM) between processes. Unfortunetly we were forced by the powers to be to do a rush job of switching our QS system to ISO and it shows in some areas. I do agree with her that it's weak and will not contest the minor but as Colpart said I find it unsatisfactory that it was not even mentioned during the doc audit.The links are there and I would have had time to make the changes.

[AndyN]

QCman:

I believe that the emphasis of the Stage 1 (since we're talking 'TS' here) is a 'readiness' review, to determine if the organization has a system in place, has been operating it getting some sort of results and the scope is correct - yada, yada......more registrar preparation (aka 'CYA') than a robust review of documentation.

I'm therefore not surprised that someone will comment later on simple stuff like this. It's frustrating because the whole idea of the 'automotive approach' is to ensure consistency......

Of course, there will always be personal bias (oops, preferences) of auditors, and it seems like this is one of hers!

[Colpart]

Unlikely scenario I know but what would happen if the auditor missed something significant at doc review and then found that it caused a Major during the certification audit? It would reflect very badly on the auditor and presumably, an appeal could be made by the organisation.