Allen M. said:I had an auditor tell me thatthere was talk within ISO to combine these two specs is there any truth to it? If so where can I find more info.Al
mikoyan said:I could see where they could combine some elements of both standards, but there are some items that have different focuses in the two.
RCBeyette said:We completed our second combined internal audit a few weeks back and one of the OFIs coming out of it was to develop a combined internal audit checklist. There was too much time spent flipping back and forth between checklists, but the time saved in auditing one process to both standards was great.
We just completed our first combined external audit and boy, I wish I could say that time was saved.
I can understand why it's important to keep the standards separate - some organizations may only wish to pursue registration to one of the standards - however, the fact that we had to visit areas twice was rather disconcerting and an ineffective use of resources in my opinion. I was joined-at-the-hip with my auditor for 8 days.
It was frustrating to visit Maintenance, for example, twice....Mtce is Mtce, no matter if the questions are geared towards a piece of equipment with a quality focus or one with an environmental focus.
If this "joint vision" continues, I hope that the the number of mandays required to audit a system (especially an integrated system) is re-assessed!
hjilling said:If your registrar audited it as you describe, shame on them. There is no reason to go to Maintenance twice, even though they use separate audit worksheets. I always audit it together on one visit, even if it not integrated at all. Why would anyone wnat to do it twice?
The only reason not to, is if the auditor is not qualified in both standards. In which case, they should provide an auditor who is.
PS: Some registrars do reduce the audit days for EMS if a system is integrated. I know at least one of the two I work for does this.