Auditor Opinion and consistency - Each auditor has different 'opinions'

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Have card will audit.

Hoosierken said:
We went through another of our Registrar's Audits this week. This is the third or fourth auditor to visit here and in six months we will be seeing another different face. Personally I'm getting tired of having a new person with their own opinions telling us that we should change A to B when the previous auditor said we should change B to A. Does the word and meaning of "Standard" mean anything to them.Ken
Ken, in addition to all the good advice you have already received, I would like to use your example to make a point about what I have been talking about the 3rd party certification business model. Because most companies think that a certificate is an attribute and "an ISO 9001 certificate is an ISO 9001 certificate", not realizing that the business decisions made by their registrars will affect them, MANY organizations make their registrar selection on price alone (even though they do not public admit it).
One way that registrars are able to reduce their costs is to freelance their audits, which is different than using subcontracted auditors. Freelancing audits tend to be detrimental to the certified organization, because, like you are describing in your case, there is no consistency and continuity between audits. Just be aware that different registrars have different business models. It is totally appropriate for you to go back to your registrar and inform them that you are not happy with their revolving door approach to your audits. If they don't listen to you, then.... whip.gif
 

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Leader
Super Moderator
Ken - if you have the authority you could consider the following (if you don't discuss with your management rep who does have the authority).

Discuss the concerns directly with the registrar - file an official complaint. use objective evidence (the audit reports themselves) and back up your objectives with the standard. Sometimes the registrar will be embarrased by the auditors performance and will take corrective action.

changing registrars is also an option but you may still have the same problem.

The registrar is the supplier and you are the customer. Registrars must be accountable for the quality of their service, but if we dont' complain they won't know something is wrong.
 
C

Carl Keller

You are paying for a service.

Inform the auditor (in a nice manner) that if he or she is unable to show you SPECIFICALLY in the standard where you are not compliant, that you will not accept, nor sign any document pertaining to the finding. Let them know interpretation and implication are unacceptable. If they persist, tell them to leave and inform them you will be withholding payment until the situation is resolved.

I've been there.

Carl-
 

Hershal

Metrologist-Auditor
Trusted Information Resource
Let me throw in my two cents....born from experience being a pain to registrar's auditors (when I was Corporate) and now from being an accreditation assessor.....

When you run into a situation as described in the first post, what I have done.....

If they can provide chapter and verse (so to speak), OK, you can hang your hat on that. If they can't provide chapter and verse (either ISO or registrar rules) then it is interpretation. If interpretation, give a choice.....remove the finding or leave a copy of the registrar's complaint procedure, and inform them that you WILL lodge a complaint with the registrar and every accrediting body that accredits the registrar for an unjustified finding.

Interpretation is OK so long as it is clear that it is interpretation and therefore non-binding.

One note, don't do that if you are not prepared to follow through. I always was and in fact have.

The accrediting bodies (at least for labs, so I expect for registrars also) will investigate the complaint and its investigation and resolution.

Put another way, you deserve a professional auditor. Hold their feet to the fire. I always did. And I hold my own feet to the fire now, and expect my customers to.

Just my thoughts.

Hershal
 

Cari Spears

Super Moderator
Leader
Super Moderator
I've disagreed with a finding or two in the past as well - fortunately the auditor that I disagreed with was not at all rude or argumentive - in fact she was quite personable - just a lousy auditor.

It never got ugly and I didn't feel the need to file a formal complaint because the auditor's behavior was completely professional - I just checked the "do not concur" and instead of providing corrective action, I provided justification for not providing corrective action.

I also contacted my account manager and requested that that auditor not be sent anymore and explained why - fortunately I was the Management Rep and did have the authority to make that decision. The registrar was happy to accomodate - no problem - and they accepted my responses to the findings I did not concur with.
 
Last edited:
V

vanputten

You may want to contact the IAF. They are the "police" in cases where auditor performance is questionable. If we do not inform the IAF, they cannot track / trend the acutal or perceived performance of auditors. The IAF has a complaint system at their website. It may be benefical to contact the ANAB also.

From ANAB (formerly the RAB):
The ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board is the U.S. accreditation body for management systems. ANAB accredits certification bodies (CBs) for ISO 9001 quality management systems (QMS) and ISO 14001 environmental management systems (EMS), as well as a number of industry-specific requirements.


From the IAF website:
The International Accreditation Forum, Inc. (IAF) is the world association of Conformity Assessment Accreditation Bodies and other bodies interested in conformity assessment in the fields of management systems, products, services, personnel and other similar programmes of conformity assessment. Its primary function is to develop a single worldwide program of conformity assessment which reduces risk for business and its customers by assuring them that accredited certificates may be relied upon. Accreditation assures users of the competence and impartiality of the body accredited. IAF members accredit certification or registration bodies that issue certificates attesting that an organisation's management, products or personnel comply with a specified standard (called conformity assessment).

The primary purpose of IAF is two-fold. Firstly, to ensure that its accreditation body members only accredit bodies that are competent to do the work they undertake and are not subject to conflicts of interest. The second purpose of the IAF is to establish mutual recognition arrangements, known as Multilateral Recognition Arrangements (MLA), between its accreditation body members which reduces risk to business and its customers by ensuring that an accredited certificate may be relied upon anywhere in the world. The MLA contributes to the freedom of world trade by eliminating technical barriers to trade. IAF works to find the most effective way of achieving a single system that will allow companies with an accredited conformity assessment certificate in one part of the world, to have that certificate recognised else where in the world. The objective of the MLA is that it will cover all accreditation bodies in all countries in the world, thus eliminating the need for suppliers of products or services to be certified in each country where they sell their products or services. Certified once - accepted everywhere.

[email protected]
 
C

Carl Keller

IAF, RAB, ANAB, Blah, Blah, Blah.

Seems time consuming.

I'm stickin with asking them to show me in plain English and then throwing them out on their ear if they can't and persist. I have too much work to do to try and fix the sorry state of affairs the RAB has created. They have known the disparity among auditors "Interpretation" has existed for years and did nothing about it.

Carl-
 

Paul Simpson

Trusted Information Resource
Where you have been decides where you stand

Whilst I am fully in favour of a two way process at audit it needs to be constructive and taken in the right spirit. If you use the customer feedback process with the registrar (as has been mentioned above) you are more likley to have a beneficial result for both sides.

Going back to the title of my post - part of the reason for differences in opinion are that auditors are part of the normal distribution of human beings - yes honestly they are human! That means you get a range of intellects, forcefulness, communication skills and experience. The audit process matches the auditor with the management rep. (Some might say pits one against the other but I am going to resist). Communication problems exist on both sides, I won't bore you with the details but with the right will on each side the audit process can work.

Enough said if I just say that I have given a management rep pointers on audit through raising a non compliance where they weren't aware of a requirement. In the same way I have had auditors come in to me and point things out that I wasn't aware were happening and was pleased to know about.

On the negative side I have had plenty of the down side where on delivering an audit I have fought with a management rep to get some understanding of a requirement and (on the other down side(?)) had to fight off auditors raising stupid non compliances because of their lack of knowledge of the business or the technology.
 
C

Carl Keller

Paul,

While you make some very valid points, they are a little off track to the original post.

Ken has auditor A telling him he needs to do it one way, then Auditor B coming in and telling him something 180 degrees off.

The bottom line is, if the registrar auditor sticks to what the standard actually states rather than interpretation and implication, there will not be any confusion or need to explain an "understanding of a requirement".

After all, it isn't really rocket science, it is 14 pages of requirements. If an auditor can't point at one of those 14 pages and say "It says right here you have to do it" then you don't have to do it and signing anything that says you will do it is a dangerous practice in my mind.

Tell them no.

Carl-
 

Caster

An Early Cover
Trusted Information Resource
Unusual?

Hoosierken said:
Personally I'm getting tired of having a new person with their own opinions telling us that we should change A to B when the previous auditor said we should change B to A. Ken

Ken

I am sorry to hear of your troubles.

Interestingly, this has never happened to me. In more than 10 years now with three different registrars and I would guess at least a dozen different auditors - no auditor has ever made any suggestion for a change.

They always just stated the problem (with a paragraph reference to the std).

Sometimes this lead to a much appreciated "we aren't allowed to consult but we have seen the following: type discussion" but most often we were left alone to decide what we might want to do.

There has been a wide range of skill across all the auditors but never did one want something their way.

I am old enough to remember customer audits - now they had no concern with telling us exactly what to do.

It appears from this thread that my experience is unusual.

I wonder are we only hearing the horror stories?

Would a thread on good audit experiences be empty? I have certainly had more good than bad.
 
Top Bottom