I don't have my book handy, but memory tells me that there is a Daimler
Chrysler C.S.R. that says the entire quality system must be covered
annually. One might infer that if a customer felt the need to create this
requirement, then the underlying standard must not require the full annual audit.
Another brief perspective: We use a "layered" philosophy. We do 1 full
system audit at a 30,000 ft level (to be candid, it is sometimes superficial).
Then we do detailed process audits (at a micro level-- e.g. 1 operation on 1
part) on a very frequent basis. We schedule the detailed audits based on
such things as new job launches (every new job gets process audits within 30 days); customer complaints (sometimes we do multiple-- a process audit right away, then another to verify the CAR); sometimes just because the job is important (high $ or sensitive customer). The systems audit meets the expectation of a full annual coverage, while the detailed process audits vary
a lot based on what's happening (status and importance.) We stumbled into
this approach in our QS implementation and it has carried forward to TS.
Brad