I have also consulted in fields where I do not have direct work experience. Yes - it can give a company a 'unique' view.
My complaint is that in the long run, if you have no experience in the field you are auditing it makes it difficult to understand what's going on. If I audit a chemical manufacturer and I have a background in that industry I will argueably be better positioned to understand what's going on and thus be able to get the audit done and get on with the show. Much time is spent in trying to educate auditors in how a business runs.
Using your arguement one can also argue that if your business is in trouble it would be well served by getting someone from outside the field to help and in fact I interviewed at Coors about 3 years ago as director of quality and their stated reasoning was just that - to get someone who was not part of their industry so that there would be no paradigms - thus they would get 'fresh' ideas.
I personally would want someone to help who had a background (and thus experience) in my business if I wanted advice. One may not see auditing in this light, but my experience has been that many, many auditors have a paradigm that is hard to break. I remember one college professor who quit to become a QS auditor. He tore up a client on their document numbering system - which is really none of his business.
It is different in the role of a consultant to some degree because you have time to communicate with and understand the company and typically have a more open mind. None the less, I believe that even in a consultant role experience in the field gives a great edge.
To say you gave them a unique audit is, I am sure, correct. I'll go you one step further. I worked in hospitals for years and didn't get into business, per se, until I was in my late 30's. I said then that my lack of experience gave me a unique view of business. I argued that I had no paradigms set as happens through years of being in a business environment. As I get older I realize how much experience in a field gives me. Just as college gives one information to call on throughout his/her life, experience in a field gives one the same. Companies in trouble rarely call in a copmany or person to help based upon their lack of experience in their business. Auditors become 'consultants' every time they write up an 'opportunity for improvement'. I have seen an awful lot of auditor write-ups based on the auditor's expectations based upon experience from another field.
But as I said, as far as all this pertains to registrar audits, I believe experience in the field shortens the audit and reduces problems with interpretations. I would prefer that if my bank is being audited that it be audited by someone with a lot of experience in the banking field. You might go in and give a bank a 'unique' audit, but I want someone who knows what to be looking for and where to look. I would want someone who knows and understands industry standards and what 'should' be there. It may be that in the Firestone case if the auditors were experienced in tyre making they would have recognized what was happening (I do not know that the auditors were not from the tyre industry, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were not).
In addition, since I'm rambling, I will comment that I believe the same auditor should be doing all the audits. Or at least be present. Too many of my clients have a common complaint - they get a different auditor every year or every 6 months and each time the 'new' auditor disallows something the previous auditor 'allowed' - essentially the interpretations issue. When I helped Motorola semiconductor in QS, we learned after the 2nd audit - we REQUIRED LRQA to supply a 'master' auditor to attend every audit. This meant that only one facility could be audited at any one time. But -the interpretations issue was so distorted during the first 2 audits that it was rediculous. In Seranban one auditor 'allowed' a certain interpretation while in Ireland the auditor 'disallowed' the same. In part, the problem was exacerbated by the lack of auditors who had a background in semiconductor manufacturing.
->I was wondering if anyone could send me some past papers
->or whatever so that I can at least get an idea as to what
->sort of questions will be asked.
This won't help much as it is all about interpretations.
->Is someone making big bucks out of exam re-sits at $1000+
->a time ???
Duh. And this, too, is all about interpretations. And, of course, yes -- money...