8.2.2.5 Internal Auditor Qualification - Competent Auditor or Qualified Auditor?

[jasonb067]

Re: 8.2.2.5 internal auditor qualification- Competent auditor or qualified auditor?

English can be fuzzy at times and there can be enough synonymous overlap between two words that context becomes necessary to decipher what's being said.

In the context of the standard, I tend to agree with Stijloor. If the standard says an auditor must be qualified, I think we should be able to assume from the context that competence is part of being qualified. It would make no sense otherwise.

On the other hand, if a person were (for example) applying for a job, the hiring company would want to know about the candidate's qualifications (training, experience, etc.) while recognizing that competence can't be demonstrated until the person is on the job.

But in the context of the standard there are customer specific requirements for Auditor Qualification. For one company those include that one must be trained in core tools, CSR, automotive process approach, or have conducted x number of internal audits.

There is also a requirement from another company for the auditor to be competent in understanding and application of process approach to auditing, core tools, and CSR.

If one portion of the standard CSR or not requires competence and remainder of the standard is silent on competence I can not infer that it is a requirement where it is not stated.

 

[insect warfare]

Re: 8.2.2.5 internal auditor qualification- Competent auditor or qualified auditor?

Hi warfare
Thanks for your reply.
I became confused, because your answer is completely against Stijloor answer. You believe that for competence you must be qualified, but Stijloor believes that for qualification you must be competent.
??

Wow, a lot of truth being spoken in this thread...

From what I've read so far, it almost sounds like a paradox: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Qualification or competence?

My thought process was that qualification is something that was done and it can be proven that it was done, just like evaluation of competence.

Competence itself is that non-tangible thing which can come and go for many, many reasons. My pool league buddies always keep telling me, "You're only as good as you play today". So true...

Has this been discussed before in the Cove? I would like to see what others have had to say about it...

Brian

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: 8.2.2.5 internal auditor qualification- Competent auditor or qualified auditor?

But in the context of the standard there are customer specific requirements for Auditor Qualification. For one company those include that one must be trained in core tools, CSR, automotive process approach, or have conducted x number of internal audits.

There is also a requirement from another company for the auditor to be competent in understanding and application of process approach to auditing, core tools, and CSR.

If one portion of the standard CSR or not requires competence and remainder of the standard is silent on competence I can not infer that it is a requirement where it is not stated.

The authors of the standard have no influence over, or any way to predict, what any individual customer might require, or what descriptive terms might be used in CSRs. It would be a wonderful thing if there were universally understood definitions, but there ain't.

 

[ssz102]

Re: 8.2.2.5 internal auditor qualification- Competent auditor or qualified auditor?

the responds from Treesei is perfectly and correctly

 

[red66climb]

There are some conflicting statements here that need some moderation!!!



The two concepts are similar but not identical. Language certainly gets in the way.

Qualifications are things we place on our resume...such as certifications and degrees.

However, to be deemed "competent" you don't have to have formal qualifications. You can learn "on-the-job" too. To be competent, we need objective evidence of competency. Observing someone and providing documented feedback is one form. Exams and quizzes are another way to demonstrate competency.

I like to think of qualifications as something I use to screen applicants with in a hiring process. Competency is something that takes me 90 days to properly evaluate and document. Both are needed in a training record. A resume may be in a personnel folder, while competency evaluations might be in a training folder. The two items together make a complete training record.

 

[Jim Wynne]

There are some conflicting statements here that need some moderation!!!

There are conflicting statements due to ambiguities in the language, and not necessarily because someone is right and someone else is wrong.

The two concepts are similar but not identical. Language certainly gets in the way.

Qualifications are things we place on our resume...such as certifications and degrees.

However, to be deemed "competent" you don't have to have formal qualifications. You can learn "on-the-job" too. To be competent, we need objective evidence of competency. Observing someone and providing documented feedback is one form. Exams and quizzes are another way to demonstrate competency.

I like to think of qualifications as something I use to screen applicants with in a hiring process. Competency is something that takes me 90 days to properly evaluate and document. Both are needed in a training record. A resume may be in a personnel folder, while competency evaluations might be in a training folder. The two items together make a complete training record.

When in doubt, look it up:

qual·i·fied(kw

l

-f

d

) adj.
1. Having the appropriate qualifications for an office, position, or task.
2. Limited, restricted, or modified: a qualified plan for expansion.

qual

i·fied

ly (-f

d

l

, -f

d-l

) adv.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


com·pe·tent(k

m

p

-t

nt) adj.
1. Properly or sufficiently qualified; capable: a competent typist.
2. Adequate for the purpose: a competent performance.
3. Law Legally qualified or fit to perform an act.

[Middle English, adequate, from Old French, from Latin compet

ns, competent-, present participle of competere, to be suitable; see compete.]
com

pe·tent·ly adv.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

[deepak69748]

Qualification : Certification Course of IQA
Competent : mere doing certification course is not enough , you should start doing Internal Quality Audits independently.