Is there any "rate the auditor" done on Elsmar or anywhere else?

[Mikishots]

Hello there,

We've just had our re-certification audit (AS 9100) and "unbelievable" things occurred:

1. the quality manual did not include the standard clauses and the auditor was quite shocked to find that !!!
Explanation: I had updated the Manual to simplify it (remove pages of clauses copied from the standard!!) and to actually bring more value to the company. I reduced it to 18 pages from 38 and I could have reduced it even more!
I told the auditor (nicely) that there was no other provision on writing the manuals except what was required by clause 4.2.2. He accepted that but later he tried continuously to "prove" what value would bring the clauses added to the manual.

2. I added more visual aids in the manual, e.g the interaction of the processes, core processes, support processes, input, and output. It was actually the model of a business process. The auditor was again shocked and appeared not to clearly understand... asked many questions like how we audited that and others... He had prepared his audit plan according to processes chosen one year ago and it was difficult I suppose to change that (though we sent him the manual one month before the audit). We tried to be helpful and said that he could do whatever would be easier for him...

3. I prepared a risk management process for the company, with criteria and all the requirements (the company had nothing at that point). In the beginning it seemed complicated, but then we managed to reduce these criteria, and it was OK (we were able to analyse risk in ~ 5 min. Criteria: families of products based on the customer, part characteristics -new/existent part, price, difficult or not to manufacture- and the main operations). We could have reduced them even more, but did not have enough time to do it... (had just 1/2 a month to do everything!!)
When we presented the risk process the auditor was again shocked, why do we have such a complicated risk process?? He said he had simpler methods to show us. We had examples of risk done (analysed), and I was 95% convinced that he could not have raised us a non-conformance. But it's not normal for a third party auditor to act like that!!!
He could give us indications or advice and we would be more than happy to accept it, but not to force them on us, right? He should not make those types of comments...

My frustration is mainly because I am quite new to this company, and I wanted to do good things for them (lost a lot of time to prepare these, even at home and at weekends, neglected my family...) . How could I actually prove them that what I did was right? How could they trust me and not their third party auditor? In the end it was established that we would do exactly what the auditor advised, of course.

I have many years of quality experience and training as a lead auditor and worked with many certification bodies before and had both types of the manuals (with and without the clauses) and nobody ever said something against...and whoever wanted to give us advice proceeded differently, not trying to impose it on us. And nobody appeared shocked of anything we had before (I even thought that maybe this auditor did not like something about me...)

We learn all our life and we continuously try to improve and when things like these happen, it’s like all you learn no longer makes sense... How could you, one person, new to the company, argue with the third party auditor (even a civilized argument!) when the people in that company are not trying but just to be veeeery nice with that auditor! (It should be right also to add that they are actually very nice to everybody...)

Thanks,
Michelle

Remember, the only thing the CB is accredited to do is compliance assessment. They are not accredited to “improve” or “add value” … that’s not on their accreditation cert, and it is not audited by the AB’s. It’s out of scope.
So the next time your auditors go on and on about what they've seen in other workplaces, show shock at why on earth you do something one way and not another and then say they're going to write up an OFI , politely decline and tell them to write a nonconformity instead. That requires they ground their opinion with an actual clause, and provide objective evidence. It can also put their advice under more scrutiny with the CB’s accreditation body.

 

[Boingo-boingo]

So the next time your auditors go on and on about what they've seen in other workplaces, show shock at why on earth you do something one way and not another and then say they're going to write up an OFI , politely decline and tell them to write a nonconformity instead. That requires they ground their opinion with an actual clause, and provide objective evidence. It can also put their advice under more scrutiny with the CB’s accreditation body.

I don't understand why some people have so much concern over 3rd party auditors providing findings categorized as opportunity for improvement. ISO 17021 clearly allows it, as long as there are no explicit prohibition from a stakeholder.

During an audit, competent assessors can, many times, identify some real opportunities for improvement and why on Earth should they not help the registrant when there is no threat to impartiality by doing so?

I believe that most of the people who are against the identification of OFI's by CB auditors are consultants, who might feel embarrassed for the fact that they had not identified the issue.

As long as the auditor does that in the spirit of collaboration and not try to impose his/her point of view onto the auditees, I fail to see why auditors can not share their knowledge and experience, within the constraint of the role they are under.

 

[Big Jim]

Remember, the only thing the CB is accredited to do is compliance assessment. They are not accredited to ?improve? or ?add value? ? that?s not on their accreditation cert, and it is not audited by the AB?s. It?s out of scope.
So the next time your auditors go on and on about what they've seen in other workplaces, show shock at why on earth you do something one way and not another and then say they're going to write up an OFI , politely decline and tell them to write a nonconformity instead. That requires they ground their opinion with an actual clause, and provide objective evidence. It can also put their advice under more scrutiny with the CB?s accreditation body.

So are we to ignore the Auditing Practices Group guidance on "How To Add Value To Audits"?

 

[perim]

In my experience, other than finding non-conformances, the most value an auditor adds to a client is when an auditor's sentence begins with the words: "There is no requirement in ... that says you have to ..."

Often people will make their quality systems too complicated for their own good, thinking something not good for the company is required when it is not, causing them lots of grief. A good auditor will point those things out, and save the client from wasting time == saving money.

This is not advice, but an observation. It is a thin line, that is true.

When a client question begins with the words: "How should we...", an auditor should know to clam up. Though a clever client would instead ask, "Have you seen any examples of how..." and might make the auditor answer it anyway

 

[SmallBizDave]

In the one case where I had an auditor acting in an unprofessional manner (similar to what MichelleN describes and worse) the situation was resolved by calling his home office and explaining the situation. They called his cell and he immediately changed his attitude. We received a fair audit after that.

The reality is that the auditor is there for two reasons. (1) to provide an unbiased audit of your system, and (2) to win the job again next year. If you express dissatisfaction with the auditor provided by the agency they should, assuming you have a case, correct the problem. Your case must be baed on the auditors behavior, not their audit work.

If the problem is serious enough you can also ask that the auditor not be assigned to your company again. Reason number (2) above is something not frequently talked about but it can have an impact.

 

[Mikishots]

I don't understand why some people have so much concern over 3rd party auditors providing findings categorized as opportunity for improvement. ISO 17021 clearly allows it, as long as there are no explicit prohibition from a stakeholder.

During an audit, competent assessors can, many times, identify some real opportunities for improvement and why on Earth should they not help the registrant when there is no threat to impartiality by doing so?

I believe that most of the people who are against the identification of OFI's by CB auditors are consultants, who might feel embarrassed for the fact that they had not identified the issue.

As long as the auditor does that in the spirit of collaboration and not try to impose his/her point of view onto the auditees, I fail to see why auditors can not share their knowledge and experience, within the constraint of the role they are under.

AS9101D states that there is no benefit to the organization, its customers or the CB in writing OFIs.

There's a fine line between sharing knowledge and experience, and conflict of interest. If there is an expectation that an OFI be implemented, then a conflict can arise - auditors can't audit their own work. This is another reason why it's complete BS that some auditors state that they can elevate an OFI to a finding if it isn't implemented.

IMO, auditors are to determine the level of compliance and adequacy to predetermined standards. They are not to provide consulting services to an organization that they will audit, nor are they to engage in consulting activities during an audit. Any involvement in the development or change of a process or system under evaluation is prohibited; the auditor cannot maintain objectivity when that process or procedure is audited again for acceptability against a reference standard.

 

[Boingo-boingo]

AS9101D states that there is no benefit to the organization, its customers or the CB in writing OFIs.

Could you please quote the sentence in AS9101D? In my copy of the standard, I read the following

In addition to recording conformity/nonconformity, the audit team may identify opportunities for improvement.

There's a fine line between sharing knowledge and experience, and conflict of interest.

Competent auditors are able to discern the line and never cross it.

If there is an expectation that an OFI be implemented,

As I said, in my previous post, competent auditors will not try to impose their views onto the auditees.

This is another reason why it's complete BS that some auditors state that they can elevate an OFI to a finding if it isn't implemented.

Another category of finding is an observation; something that is a concern, but, according to auditor's judgement, no requirement has been violated. If, in a subsequent audit, the observation escalated into a nonconformity and there is evidence to that effect, the auditor MUST report the nonconformity as such, since it is a requirement of AS9101D.

PS. I would suggest you use the proper terminology: the term finding is NOT synonymous with nonconformity. Any nonconformity is a finding, but NOT every finding is a nonconformity. I think it is important for professionals to use proper terms, so we can understand ourselves better.

 

[Big Jim]

Both sides of this issue may benefit from reading the article from the Auditing Practices Group on Adding Value to Audits. It clearly shows how to add value without consulting.

https://isotc.iso.org/livelink/live...owtoAddValue.doc.pdf?nodeid=3553372&vernum=-2