Why do you get assigned an auditor from a registrar (that sticks with you)

[puck1263]

Why are you assigned a specific auditor from a registrar? This person then has confilct of interest for keeping you as a "client."

Why don't the registrars randomly pick an auditor from a pool of auditors each time an audit is needed? That way, no bias on the auditors part. Also, auditors can verify each others work. If an auditor let a slack company through, the next auditor can catch the company and the auditor. This will keep the quality of auditing up.

Answers? thoughts?

 

[db]

There is a flip side. Each auditor will have to get acquainted with the company, and how that company applys the standard to their operations. But a fresh pair of eyes is good, and that is why many registrars are rotating auditors after 3 years. The auditor will not become to familiar or comfortable with the client, and yet has time to get to understand the client and the application of its QMS (or EMS -- or whatever).

 

[AndyN]

Why do you say it's a conflict of interest? Some would say using a supplier to tell you you're in compliance is the ultimate 'conflict of interest' anyway! Practically - look at the comments in many threads here - nothing could be further from the truth and, if you choose the right CB - accreditation looks after much of that thought.

Like most things in life, there's pros and cons.

As Dave says, some clients want the auditor to fully understand their business, system etc and don't want to waste time, especially during a short surveillance visit, 'getting up to speed'......

It's a relationship - not a 'one night stand' - so keeping the auditor around for a few visits is beneficial. You get to see the auditors strengths and weaknesses, develop a basis of agreement, understanding, which is of vital importance. True, you're not married to us, but like all supplier relationships, you have to work at them and embrace the relationship to get the most from it. We are not like your local grocery store! You can't buy our services anywhere!

There's continuity of approach from visit to visit, audit trails and trends are more readily accessible to one auditor.

The practical reality is that clients want local auditors - to keep costs down. It's highly unlikely that any one CB has that many auditors available so closely located geographically to keep changing them out and keep costs down! Even more so if the client opts for 6 monthly visits!

Added to which, not all auditors are qualified in every industry, either! OK to some extent if it's a 'plain' ISO 9001 certificate, but if you get ISO 13485 or TS 16949 or TL9000 etc. in the mix, then 'random' selection goes right out the window.

It's a nice idea, but market forces, costs, accreditation and service preclude it for all but a small community of clients.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Why don't the registrars randomly pick an auditor from a pool of auditors each time an audit is needed?

Have you ever experienced inconsistent interpretations between two different auditors over the same set of objective evidence?

This will keep the quality of auditing up.

I beg to differ. The first time any auditor assesses an organization, s/he normally suffers from "information overload", when the people, processes, systems, acronyms, etc... are all "new". Because of that learning, the first audit is typically shallower, compared to audits of systems and organizations that you are familiar with. Also, the continuity of the audit program is seriously affected if every audit is a "learning curve". Like most things in life, there are pros and cons either way, but in my experience, provided the relationship is healthy between auditor and audited organization, a long term relationship is much more beneficial for both parties.

 

[Coury Ferguson]

Why are you assigned a specific auditor from a registrar? This person then has confilct of interest for keeping you as a "client."

I am confused by this statement. I don't see where the conflict of interest is with the Auditor. Could you site some examples of where there was a conflict of interest between the Auditor and the Organization?

There is a relationship of Partnership between the Registrar and client.

That way, no bias on the auditors part. Also, auditors can verify each others work. If an auditor let a slack company through, the next auditor can catch the company and the auditor.

Again, site some examples here. The System is verified/validated per the standard in which the client seeks registration.

The objective of the audit to to improve the system, not catch someone doing something wrong.

This will keep the quality of auditing up.

Show me examples on how this will improve the quality of the audit. Even though quality is the client's/customer's perception.

 

[harry]

The accounts of our service club are audited by a big of the big fives. It wasn't by choice but more due to huge turnover that they assigned new auditors practically every year (also because they don't charge a charity huge fees). It's a pain and hassle having to explain things over and over again and year in, year out to these newbie auditors because we don't operate the commercial way and most of our projects are unique.

Needless to say, the audit is only useful to satisfy regulatory requirements but doesn't add any value like what you would normally expect.

 

[Sharon_Noble]

We had the same auditor for 8 years (till he got laid off). As it stands there is only 1 auditor to do TS audits in our area... so I guess we are going to see him again and again (until he gets laid off or retires) LOL

 

[B.Read - 2010]

All good points. Having the same auditor also ensures that effective corrective actions have taken place. The auditor is familiar with the nonconformance. I do agree they should rotate after a few years. A new set of eyes is a good thing.

 

[puck1263]

Hi all
appreciate the responses. I haven't chimed in for a while.

First, the word "caught' is a bad word to use, as indicated.
ASQ audting handbook defines audit as "systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining audit evidence and evaulating it objectively to determine the extent to which the audit criteria are fulfiled." Its basically a verification that you do what you say you do. To you, auditing might be an improvement tool. To clients, they want the verification first, then we can look at improvement. When we audit potential suppliers, I want to evaluate if they can deliver quality product to me. If there are several suppliers who score much better, I will likely drop them from the list...and then there is no improvement element.
In that, auditing is a measuring tool, like any other measuring tool (caliper, etc). So, there should be a G R&R type element. An auditor should make the same conclusion given the same evidence on different occasions, and other auditors should also. I should be able to send any SQE (who audits) to a supplier and expect the same results, given objectives and focus. In that sense, for registrars...are all the auditors consistent? Are the audits consistent? Rotation would help look at that. That is what I mean by increasing quality and "catching" where it is not.

Regarding the "relationship." I understand the message but dont' agree. Location is certainly a concern for costs. However, wasting time learning your systems shouldn't be an issue...there is a document review, etc for that. When I go to new or potential suppliers, I can audit them. "Knowing" how thier system or business works shouldn't matter. Its a key point we tell internal auditors when training them......one of the first questions (from, say, HR when asked to audit purchasing process) that auditors have is "how can I audit them? I don't know anything about _____?" The answer is, you don't have to. Their system and process documentation will tell you what you need to know.

Looks like a few nerves were hit in this thread, which was not the intention.

 

[somerqc]

I wouldn't say my nerve has been struck, but, I do agree with the majority of the responses.

Our regular auditor was off on medical leave (he has since returned), so we had an auditor fill-in. Unfortunately, he spent the first 2 hours getting accustomed to our setup for a 1 day audit. It was not very deep nor worthwhile, but, we did "meet the requirements".

Fortunately, our regular auditor has since returned and we have gained MANY new insights from him as he has learned our process. After 12 years of ISO programs, I definitely side with the "long-term relationship" model of registrar-client interactions.

John