Anyone Else bored with/during their continuing ISO 9001 audits?

[W. de Jong]

Why attend?

Hi,

Assuming we're doing everything right and my paperwork is upto date, I find my self bored during the audit and in fact doing very little to prepare for the audit. Yes it can be stressful, but I'm finding the audits very repetativle and boring. *shrug*

If you are that bored why do you attend the audit in the 1st place? After all it's not you they want to see. Let someone else be his/her guide in the company.

 

[jaimezepeda]

After dealing with ISO for the last 15 years, there is not much left to learn. I have even gone so far as leaving holes in the system to see if the auditor noticed them. 9 out of 10 times they don't even notice..

I've tried some of this myself. I don't do it to keep myself entertained though. Often it helps if an "outsider" re-states what an "insider" failed to communicate clearly. And there are times when the hole goes unnoticed.

Jaime

 

[Sidney Vianna]

A related article available this month at the INFORM newsletter @ http://www.irca.org/inform/issue9/NThorpe.htm

A new kind of auditing?

Dogged by bad press and inadequate management support, are audits really adding the value they should be? Nick Thorpe talks to some experts and investigates whether ‘quantum’ auditing is the way forward

Many organizations have a mature quality management system but also realise that the traditional approach to auditing, both internal and external, has begun to lose momentum in terms of the benefits gained by the business. As INform reported in its first issue in 2003 (http://www.irca.org/inform/issue1/timohanlon.htm), an engine plant at Hams Hall (UK) for BMW recognized this inertia, and kick-started the development of a new kind of truly value-adding audit, which was dubbed a quantum audit. This new strategy aimed to reduce the amount of time and effort required overall on the audit while improving the audit’s output in terms of improvement opportunities and stakeholder satisfaction.

While the benefits of this new approach were keenly felt at Hams Hall – with a reduced number of audits needed, fewer certificates covering multiple sites, and positive feedback from stakeholders – have quantum audits now truly become a way of life for the auditing community around the world, or is there still a long way to go?

Management buy in
If the audit is floundering it is often because, while there has been much investment into conforming with new standards and aligning business strategies with social responsibility targets, investment in cultivating management appreciation of the value of well-implemented audits is lacking. Larry Belusz, director of accreditation at Perry Johnson Registrars, USA, argues that management have often become so focused on the bottom line, and ‘what the audit can do for them’ that they fail to appreciate the less tangible organizational improvements. ‘Management see QMS auditing as a necessary evil and thus try to get it done with as little investment and involvement as possible’.

As organizations with high levels of quality or environmental awareness struggle to relate their corporate responsibility to their business goals, it is vital that the auditing process is truly dynamic and all-encompassing, and examines the businesses’ strategic plan rather than unconnected ‘elements’ of a standard. As Belusz puts it: ‘Auditor competency needs to evolve in step with the growth of the organization’.

A bad reputation?
Colin Gray, a trainer with Cavendish Scott USA, points out that with the growing number of part-time auditors and increasingly stringent ISO certification bodies, many are concerned that the auditing process is suffering as poorly trained auditors who lack experience and understanding fail to conduct an effective audit. As IRCA director Simon Feary said in issue 8 of INform: ‘Demand has outstripped the ability of the infrastructure to control the quality of output. Free markets, an over-abundance of providers and the voluntary nature of certification have allowed short-term commercial interests to exploit opportunities offered by naive markets and complicit or disinterested governments.’

Moving on up

Opinions in the auditing community are divided as to whether the auditing process as whole needs to be rebranded. Some say the problem lies with the auditors themselves. They maintain that the system is robust but it simply needs to be ‘sold’ more successfully – rather than differently - by the auditors.

Yoshito Hirabayashi, Director of Japanese consultancy Technofer Ltd., believes that auditors need to ask different questions, rather than rebrand: ‘Every time an auditor finds an incident of non-compliance, they should ask the stakeholder “Do you know about it?”’. In this way, attention can be brought to the non-compliance incident and responsibility for rectification can be assigned. Larry Belusz sees the problems lying in the perceived definition of the word ‘audit’, suggesting that it conjures up preconceptions of ‘finding fault’. He recommends rebranding the audit process so higher tier staff can ‘report to management on the effectiveness of the management systems’, rather than ‘subjecting them to an audit’.

For audits to truly add value at all levels of an organization, everyone from managers to admin staff need to buy into the process and recognize that, in doing so, they are driving not only their business forward, but also themselves. Colin Gray believes in the mantra ‘Management investment, management investment, management investment’. He believes that only once companies have trained managers to understand audits, use externally-qualified auditors, and a well thought out costing for the audit process, will the high-level benefits be appreciated. Corrective actions and off-site reviews of points raised from audits will also help management to focus on ‘real-time’ issues and help them to appreciate the business value behind the process.

So what does the future hold? Can the industry develop and transform itself to account for the increasingly dynamic business world? In the past, the auditor was seen as the ‘policeman’, someone to be feared and pandered to. Hirabayashi, for one, believes radical change is required to implement the necessary changes, and exhorts the auditing industry ‘to create a new QMS audit methodology, rebuilt through a survey of auditors and stakeholders’.

As Steve Meakin, trainer for PERA, concludes, whether or not a complete overhaul is required, it seems that it’s time for auditors to be treated more as a consultant, advising companies on ways to improve their business and being seen as a key business driver rather than an imposed overhead.

Tips for quantum auditing

In practical terms, then, how can businesses themselves help the auditors make a more effective audit? Some methods include:

• making the whole process more lean. Belusz believes that 15 per cent of every audit is spent ‘finding records’ and supporting documentation. If businesses assembled the appropriate process records as dictated by the audit plan it would not only save time but also instil a best practice technique for future audits

• training employees in the audit process themselves so they are aware of the processes and systems surrounding a company-wide audit

• encouraging staff to view the audit as an asset to their business life and not a hindrance that must be treated with suspicion

• installing a reliable electronic document management process and encourage the use of flow-charts and diagrams as opposed to written procedures

• identifying, encouraging and maintaining the quality of the internal audits/auditors. As Belusz points out, ‘Demonstrated effectiveness in this one area of the management system allows the auditor to focus on opportunities for improvement and strategic business issues rather than having to keep verifying basic system requirements when the internal audit process is less than expected’

 

[Shawn Johnson - 2009]

Audit Days Increase - 6 to 12 month surveilance

Did they increase your audit days when they went to 12 months?

Dave

Frankly, I wouldn't think that would happen. Guide 62, for now, is still the guide used for determining may-days for audits. If you do 1.5 days on a 6 month surveilance, you'd do 3 days with a 12 month one.