Are 3rd party (ISO9001 Registrar) auditors allowed to provide "Recommendations" ?

[Govind]

I am getting an impression from both Randy and Rob that this topic was discussed earlier in this forum? I always perform a search before posting any new thread.I did not get the results for my keywords Auditor + recommendations. I guessing probably these auditor recommendation could have been discussed between the posting of some threads.

On the other hand there are many members who join everyday and may not know about those previous discussions. This new thread will provide an opportunity for them to participate as well.This is a subject almost everyone in Quality encounter.

I started this thread because one of our management staff was asking me, what value addition the auditor provides if they are only identifying the findings and not providing any recommendations to close those findings?

I was always given the impression that the Third party auditors (Registration body) are not allowed to provide recommendations for correcting deficiencies, since this may be considered as a potential bias.
(This perception is echoed by almost all members who posted the reply)

I said that auditor should not provide recommendations. But wanted to authenticate my reply.


I started to dig up the standards and books from authority in this subject to see if my perception is right?

Surprisingly:

ISO19011:2000 Page 20, section 6.6.1 subclauses o. Guideline says:
recommendations for improvement, if specified in the audit objectives.

This can be interpreted as "opportunities for improvement" of a possible condition in a system which could potentially deteriorate to a nonconformance OR
Recommendations for improving a situation due to an existing non conformance.

Audit Objective: For a 3rd party audit, always compliance to a system standard. Iam not aware if any organization has a contract with 3rd party registrar to also provide recommendations.

Also in my first posting, I have quoted reference from J.P Russell book.

This is the reason, I started this thread to get a clarity and find any authentic reference that says that Auditor shall not provide recommendations.
I don't have copies of standards that are used by Registration and Accreditation bodies. Is there anything coming from those standards that does not allow Auditors not to provide recommendations?

Govind.

[engjane]

Im sorry if Im dragging on a tired thread but having just been through an audit, I wanted to say that the information our auditors gave us (not consulting, not recommending) was invaluable.
They have so much experience of other industries and companies and also they have had a lot more opportunity to translate the standards. To get no value from them would be such a waste.
Imagine meeting the Dalai and not asking any questions or gleaning any wisdom!

Anyway, thats my ha'penny's worth.

[Sam]

In Reply to Parent Post by Govind

ISO19011:2000 Page 20, section 6.6.1 subclauses o. Guideline says:
recommendations for improvement, if specified in the audit objectives.

This can be interpreted as "opportunities for improvement" of a possible condition in a system which could potentially deteriorate to a nonconformance OR
Recommendations for improving a situation due to an existing non conformance.

This is the reason, I started this thread to get a clarity and find any authentic reference that says that Auditor shall not provide recommendations.
I don't have copies of standards that are used by Registration and Accreditation bodies. Is there anything coming from those standards that does not allow Auditors not to provide recommendations?

Govind.

For TS2 the "rules" require that auditors are to identify opportunities for improvement. Key word "identify"; not recommend a fix.

I agree with you interpretation of the 19011. In the same vein, recommend an improvement not a fix.

[Hershal]

Accreditation assessors struggle with this issue also, folks. Not just registration auditors or clients.

Our approach (this AB only, I can't speak for others) is to identify the non-conformities of course, and if we see an opportunity for the laboratory or inspection agency to improve (our opinion, of course), we communicate that as one potential way to improve. It is strictly communicated as non-binding, and that the lab or agency is free to think about it, implement it, or ignore it.

We are very conscious of the issue of consultancy.

Just a view from the 17025/17020 world.

Hershal

[Marc]

Poll added 30 June 2004 by request.

[Govind]

In Reply to Parent Post by Sam

For TS2 the "rules" require that auditors are to identify opportunities for improvement. Key word "identify"; not recommend a fix.

I agree with you interpretation of the 19011. In the same vein, recommend an improvement not a fix.

Except for this posting from Sam, I don't see any other authentic reference from 19011 or other Guides saying not to provide recommendations.

I think the auditors can provide recommendations for improvement and not suggestions for closing a finding. (after hearing the views of our members and some thinking I chose that option in the poll).

I agree that some auditors have very good knowledge of the systems and processes since they visit several organizations and see various best practices.

I think the recommendation is to be of a nature "What should be done" rather than "How to be done".
"How" depends on resources, methods, tools available with the organization which auditor may not know.

Let us see if there are some more views from other members.

Govind.

[Jennifer Kirley]

In Reply to Parent Post by Govind

Except for this posting from Sam, I don't see any other authentic reference from 19011 or other Guides saying not to provide recommendations.

I think the auditors can provide recommendations for improvement and not suggestions for closing a finding. (after hearing the views of our members and some thinking I chose that option in the poll).

I agree that some auditors have very good knowledge of the systems and processes since they visit several organizations and see various best practices.

I think the recommendation is to be of a nature "What should be done" rather than "How to be done".
"How" depends on resources, methods, tools available with the organization which auditor may not know.

Let us see if there are some more views from other members.

Govind.

This seems like a safe distinction, but are clients so subtle as to understand, appreciate and apply their spirit to these nuances? I am concerned they are not; at least, not reliably, even the same client between different situations.

Perhaps this is why I have been strongly advised from all sources to resist the urge to advise or recommend anything as auditor. What of the details we do not know, those things we are not being told by everyone, or a history we don't know enough of? A nuance can trip you up badly. Then what? A reputation is a terrible thing to waste.

And yet, during the years I served as examiner for the state's version of Baldrige Award, many times I so wished I could just tell them a technique that was so simple, but they weren't getting it. It was so very frustrating to have to watch as they bumped around until they build finesse in measurements, analysis and connecting those dots. We were also strongly admonished not to utter anything that could be considered advice, though the feedback reports did speak of the ideals enough to be considered an effort in telepathy.

[db]

I do not audit for a living, and it has been a while since my lead auditor training. However, I think it is in Guide 62 where auditors are prohibited from consulting. Most will tell you they must even be careful in how they write OFIs, so that they will not cross the line. I can point out where a nonconformance is, and I can show where improvements can be made, but I cannot tell you how to make the change.

As I understand the rules.