"LEAD AUDITOR" terminology - 3rd Party Auditors can't make up their minds

[xfngrs]

I sent a process flow for our internal audit process to an auditor in a sister corporation. They use the same 3rd party auditing body that we do.
The auditor reviewed it and told me to take out the term "Lead Auditor" unless they are QSA trained, because they had gotten written up on this before.

This confuses me because for a time we had taken the term out, but were told by our 3rd party auditor that we HAD to have a "Lead Auditor" for audits. So we put it back in.

Anybody else run into this before? Anybody come up with a reasonable alternative?

[The Taz!]

In Reply to Parent Post by xfngrs

Anybody else run into this before? Anybody come up with a reasonable alternative?

We actually took the word Lead away from the auditors for a different reason. The audits were performed by a team (2 - 3) auditors with a Lead. Seems the Lead did all the work and the others went along for the ride.

Now audits are performed by "qualified auditors" <PERIOD>

They all had the same training, and are expected to do the same amount of work in the audit process. Actually makes for a level playing field for the audit teams.

[mshell]

If you would like to leave the Lead Auditor in the process, you can define lead auditor as it applies to your organization. In addition, you might want to add the term external auditor (with definition) to cover your registrar and any auditors sent in by your customers.

[RCBeyette]

In Reply to Parent Post by mshell

If you would like to leave the Lead Auditor in the process, you can define lead auditor as it applies to your organization. In addition, you might want to add the term external auditor (with definition) to cover your registrar and any auditors sent in by your customers.

In Reply to Parent Post by The Taz!

We actually took the word Lead away from the auditors for a different reason. The audits were performed by a team (2 - 3) auditors with a Lead. Seems the Lead did all the work and the others went along for the ride.

Now audits are performed by "qualified auditors"

They all had the same training, and are expected to do the same amount of work in the audit process. Actually makes for a level playing field for the audit teams.

Right to you both!

When I started here we had supposed "Leads" and "Teams". Leads did all the paperwork and asking of questions. Teams were more like portable secretaries, taking notes.

As part of the revamp of the IA process, I determined what distinguished a "Team" from a "Lead" within our organization. This included training requirements, assesment results, knowledge, experience, etc.

If your Registrar takes exception to the use of the word "Lead", provide your definition of what a "Lead" is within your organization. It's your system and it has to work for you.

[Rob Nix]

xfngrs,

Concerning your original issue: First of all, it grinds me to no end when auditors speak in absolutes about things of which there are NO REQUIREMENTS, just personal preferences!!! You can call anyone a lead auditor you want (as long as, like Roxane says, you define how it applies in your organization).

You must challenge your auditors by asking "where is that written??" Otherwise you will be scrambling like a nervous squirrel modifying things to suit an auditor's whims.

[Randy]

Problem with the term "Lead"

Lead does nothing more than identify a job assignment and responsibility, it has nothing to do with certification and level of training. As an organization you can identify what you specific requirements are for an auditor to meet, develop and deliver the training and designate anyone you wish to be the "Lead" as long as you can show they meet "your" competence requirements.

The only time your registrar can pee and moan is if your contract language stipulates something like this.

Flitter

[xfngrs]

Thanks for all the input. It reaffirms my thinking.

As for using Teams instead of Lead to get them to do equal work, that's why we eliminated the "Lead" term here too. However, we've since discovered that they prefer to be Lead on some and not on some. So we schedule them for Lead on one and "not-Lead" on the other to assign who is responsible for the paperwork function. Otherwise, they say - oh he's doing this part, and I'm doing that part and they don't coordinate.

[Dr. L. Ramakrishnan]

Friends,

I would like to draw your attention to section 7.3.1, 7.3.2, (knowledge and skills), 7.4.1 and 7.4.2 (education, work experience, auditor training, audit experience) and Table 1 (examples of level of experience...) of ISO-19011; if there is no need for a Audit Team Leader (Lead Auditor), ISO-19011 does not need to spend so much of space on this subject.

ISO-9001 and ISO-14001 audits are expected to be conducted as per a Standard (e.g. ISO-19011) - that is the recommendation of IAF. That means that the audit, whether it is an internal audit or a certification/surveillence audit, has to be conducted by a team of auditors lead by a Team Leader (in case of a single auditor team, the single auditor becomes the Team Leader).

As far as the "Team Leader" meets the requirements of criteria 7.3.2 and 7.4.2, there should not be any issue raised by the certification bodies. But if the "Team Leader" does not meet the requirements of these criteria, certification auditors are expected to raise this issue as a non-conformance. I dobut if our defining "Team Leader" will work; IAF document requires that the audit is carried out according to a Standard by auditors qualified according to a Standard. Hence the "auditor" and "lead auditor" should be qualified and experienced as per an acceptable standard to carry out an audit (including internal audit).

Best wishes, Ramakrishnan