AS9100 Rev D Clause 10.2 - Is Cause always required?

dsanabria

Quite Involved in Discussions
9.2.2.c? Why didn't you quote it?

OK - Quote:

"From the IAQG website: IAQG 9100 :2016 Clarifications

9.2.2c Does the IAQG 9100 standard allow the Quality Assurance manager be the lead auditor in an Internal Audit and audit QA specific questions?

No. The requirement in IAQG 9100 is "select auditors and conduct audits to ensure objectivity and the impartiality of the audit process." This ISO 9001 text is in place to ensure an effective internal audit by having an objective and impartial auditor. It also states that auditors shall not audit their own work to ensure an independent set of eyes are being used to conduct the audit."


Un Quote
 

Big Jim

Admin
What is missing in his is the same as what is missing in all published versions of both AS9100D and ISO 9001:2015.

"Auditors cannot audit their own work."
 

dsanabria

Quite Involved in Discussions
Apparently your copy of AS9100 does not have a 9.2.2 section :tg:

...and here is what the standard says which is totally different than the clarification which was the point the BigJim was stating. It appears that the IAQG contradicts the standard - this should be corrected in the IAQG Website.

and I Quote

"9.2 Internal Audit

9.2.1 The organization shall conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide information on whether the quality management system;

a. conforms to:

1. the organization’s own requirements for its quality management system;

NOTE: The organization’s own requirements should include customer and applicable statutory and regulatory quality management system requirements.

2. the requirements of this International Standard;


b. is effectively implemented and maintained.

NOTE: When conducting internal audits, performance indicators can be evaluated to determine whether the quality management system is effectively implemented and maintained.

9.2.2 The organization shall:

a. plan, establish, implement, and maintain an audit program(s) including the frequency, methods, responsibilities, planning requirements, and reporting, which shall take into consideration the importance of the processes concerned, changes affecting the organization, and the results of previous audits;

b. define the audit criteria and scope for each audit;

c. select auditors and conduct audits to ensure objectivity and the impartiality of the audit process;

d. ensure that the results of the audits are reported to relevant management;

e. take appropriate correction and corrective actions without undue delay;

f. retain documented information as evidence of the implementation of the audit program and the audit results."

Un Quote:

Oh look - no mention in the standard of auditors not auditing their area - but that IAQG does say that auditors can not audit their areas...
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Auditors need to be impartial, objective and independent. If you think the QA Mgr of an aerospace supplier can audit and oversee the audit of the QA function, we differ in our interpretation. And, as I already said, should that practice be uncovered by an FAA representative, it would be frowned upon. Risky. Basically not thinking.
 

Big Jim

Admin
Auditors need to be impartial, objective and independent. If you think the QA Mgr of an aerospace supplier can audit and oversee the audit of the QA function, we differ in our interpretation. And, as I already said, should that practice be uncovered by an FAA representative, it would be frowned upon. Risky. Basically not thinking.

I didn't intend to open a debate as to if it was a good idea to audit your own work or not, just point out that whoever wrote that guidance / clarification misquoted the standard and by doing so invalidated it. They provided guidance based on inaccurate information.

I'm prepared to get into a debate about it could be proper to audit your own work at times if you want to go there. That wasn't my intent.

The assumption that because of being objective and impartial means that you could never audit your own work is short sighted.

More than anything else this shows the resistance to change, even though the wording in the standard changed. There must be a reason that the writers of the standard left this out.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
They did not misquote. Auditors have to be independent. It is a requirement. How can you be independent auditing your own work? Not mentioning impartial and objective.
The standard was reworded but the inten is still the same.
 

Big Jim

Admin
They did not misquote. Auditors have to be independent. It is a requirement. How can you be independent auditing your own work? Not mentioning impartial and objective.
The standard was reworded but the inten is still the same.

I hope we don't need to define what a misquote is.

This misquote is as clear as a sunny day.

"It also states that auditors shall not audit their own work to ensure an
independent set of eyes are being used to conduct the audit."


The writer starts of saying "It also states that auditors shall not audit their own work . . . "
The standard does not say that. THAT IS A MISQUOTE.

It appears that the writer did a hack job and simply cut and pasted from previous material without paying attention to the rewording.

You can't get around that.
 

Big Jim

Admin
I see that Sydney has been down this road before. In October 2015, while Elsmar Cove was down, he posted on The Quality Forum that he requested an interpretation from TC-176 on this topic. There wasn't a response concerning his request in that thread. The request was made on post 27.

Read the entire thread.

https://www.qualityforumonline.com/forum/index.php?threads/you-can-audit-your-own-work.244/page-2

It appears that "independent" was not defined in ISO 9001:2015 or ISO 9000:2015. Dictionary definitions didn't come up with the clarity that matched Sydney's expectations either.

Sydney, has TC-176 responded yet? If they have, can you share it with us?
 

dsanabria

Quite Involved in Discussions
Auditors need to be impartial, objective and independent. If you think the QA Mgr of an aerospace supplier can audit and oversee the audit of the QA function, we differ in our interpretation. And, as I already said, should that practice be uncovered by an FAA representative, it would be frowned upon. Risky. Basically not thinking.

Not to continue this debate but are we in agreement the the IAQG is clarifying the Internal audits requirements of "auditors not auditing their own areas"

This way if an NCR is written I have information to back it up - if it is challenged.

Thanks
 
Top Bottom