The Taz! said:
You have met (and I'm not surprised at all) the intent of the standard relative to continual improvement of your processes. You (and your company) have done exactly what you should have. Not too many companies are there from what I have heard, read and seen.
I'm blushing!
The Taz! said:
Scheduling subsequent audits when audit results warrant it is a requirement of the standard, and it is also good practice.
That's something I love about our Management Committee. We feel the System has evolved to the point where a once-a-year audit is effective and, bonus, it minimizes the impact on the employees. However, if the results are not up to par, Management is the first in line requesting more audits.
The Taz! said:
Multiple audits are warranted when a system is either new, or shows signs deterioration.
Precisely! Our EMS attempted to do just one Internal Audit from the beginning, thinking since it piggy-backed off of the 9K System, everything would be fine. Results indicated otherwise in those areas where the links between 9K and 14K were minimal...thus resulting in an OFI to conduct General Awareness Audits once a month for a year to not only ascertain if the level of awareness was improving, but to also serve as a form of communication.
The Taz! said:
Bottom line, determine where you are, and audit the system when necessary. This brings up an interesting point. . . would you audit (inspect/verify) a product once a year? The customer wants and pays for good product and in order to get paid for producing the product, and keeping the customer satisfied, you "inspect/verify/audit" it as frequently as necessary.
In a way, this is done at our location. We have fabrication standards in the Melt Shop and product characteristics in the Rolling Mill. When a Customer requests a product, they request a particular grade and a particular shape. In both areas of the process, product is tested to ensure it matches the criteria of grade/shape outlined on the fab standard/prod. char. sheets.
The fabrication standards and product characteristics are reviewed annually to ensure that we are still within ASTM/CSA/other specifications (i.e., our tolerances are tighter than those given by ASTM/CSA/etc.).
We also have process audits conducted...to ensure that people are using the right rolls, guides, tools, processes, etc.
The Taz! said:
The customer does not pay for your QMS. . . your company does, and to that end, you want to get your money's worth. If the QMS (or BMS in your case) is efficient and effective, you do not need to audit/verify/inspect it as often. When you have rejects, you need to look at it more often. Sorta like a stable and in control manufacturing process. JMHO
Sounds like Root Cause Analysis to me...which is done when the Key Indicators or triggers show a process out of control.
Don't get me wrong. I like Internal Audits and believe that they have much to offer to the improvement of the System....and sometimes even the Process. However, tools such as Key Indicators and SPC, have much more to offer to the immediate control and improvement of a Process and Product.
If a Process has gone out of control and is resulting in nonconforming Product being generated, our System calls for tools such as Abnormality Reports or Nonconformance Reports to be initiated....which may lead to a Root Cause Analysis being conducted or Ishikawa. An Interal Audit would verify that the proper (paperwork) Process was followed to get the (manufacutring) Process back under control.