M
mcgilla
Hello everyone,
I'm actually looking to get some feedback on interpretations of a few things. We've just gone through our re-registration audit late last week. And while we didn't get any findings, our auditor's style is one that he hints towards things he's going to look at during our next surveillance. He was auditing our production processes and asked a few employees what our Quality Policy means to them. I wouldn't have given any better responses than many of my workers, however they didn't mention "continual improvement". Our policy states that, of course, but I feel this is getting to a nit picking stage of auditing our company. I don't see where it can be interpreted as needing to say those exact words. That's what I'm wondering about in your interpretations.. do my employees "HAVE" to say continual improvement. When my workers were questioned by our auditor about continual improvement, they all agreed that's what we do all of the time. It's a normal environment to them.
Second comes to another critical area of the standard.. Internal Auditing. He got hung up on "reporting results" meaning literally writing a report. I interpret that differently in that if I can report on the results in management review, that satisfies the standard. He specifically wanted observations, findings, recommendations, opportunity for improvement all on a report. The dynamic of our management staff is not one of fluff. We tell each other what was found, assign people who handle the task/action items, report the closing date, verify the action and discuss. What was not necessarily captured is our "discussion". Am I being too simplistic in my interpretation of reporting results. We've found that simple really allows for a great system. Our staff wears many hats, as I'm sure most everyone's does, so I'll have a mutiny on my hands if everyone has to read/write a lengthy report outside of management review of our system.
I appreciate any feedback.
Ed
I'm actually looking to get some feedback on interpretations of a few things. We've just gone through our re-registration audit late last week. And while we didn't get any findings, our auditor's style is one that he hints towards things he's going to look at during our next surveillance. He was auditing our production processes and asked a few employees what our Quality Policy means to them. I wouldn't have given any better responses than many of my workers, however they didn't mention "continual improvement". Our policy states that, of course, but I feel this is getting to a nit picking stage of auditing our company. I don't see where it can be interpreted as needing to say those exact words. That's what I'm wondering about in your interpretations.. do my employees "HAVE" to say continual improvement. When my workers were questioned by our auditor about continual improvement, they all agreed that's what we do all of the time. It's a normal environment to them.
Second comes to another critical area of the standard.. Internal Auditing. He got hung up on "reporting results" meaning literally writing a report. I interpret that differently in that if I can report on the results in management review, that satisfies the standard. He specifically wanted observations, findings, recommendations, opportunity for improvement all on a report. The dynamic of our management staff is not one of fluff. We tell each other what was found, assign people who handle the task/action items, report the closing date, verify the action and discuss. What was not necessarily captured is our "discussion". Am I being too simplistic in my interpretation of reporting results. We've found that simple really allows for a great system. Our staff wears many hats, as I'm sure most everyone's does, so I'll have a mutiny on my hands if everyone has to read/write a lengthy report outside of management review of our system.
I appreciate any feedback.
Ed