Audits Before Assesment

[CarolX]

Perhaps this question has been asked before - so my appologies in advance....

I interviewed a registrar yesterday and he stated that we must audit all of the ISO elements before we can be certified. Where is this requirment stated, or is it implied in some way?

This is how my procedures are set-up right now. Management reviews quality system on a weekly and monthly basis. From these reviews, quartly audits will be scheduled. I beleive this satisfies the requirements for internal audits.

Comments anyone .... or an old thread I can read-up on?

 

[barb butrym]

why on earth would you want a registrar's auditor in without a full round of audits being done?

Anyway..its a registrar specific clause that I believe 99.99999% of them adhere to. It would be a waste of time and expense to come in if a company had not audited their own system for compliance first...sure would lead me (with my auditiors hat on) to look for more signs of a lack of commitment to the project if a company even suggested that they don't need to do a complete round before the registrar comes in......

As a consultant, my companies do several rounds before the registration audit is scheduled.

 

[Alf Gulford]

Only a comment. I've had two different registrars tell me the same thing and, even though it may be a 'registrar requirement' rather than ISO, it made sense to me. How else could I have gone into a pre-assessment with any assurance that our bases were covered?

 

[Jim Biz]

Originally posted by CarolX:
Where is this requirment stated?

Nope - not "spelled out" in the standards - as well as the "implied requirement" of auditing every element/procedure/system doc. every year (on the basis of importance of course). And the implied requirement from our particular registrar that we ask the same internal audit questions based on specific standards statements for each sentence/a.b.c.d.... task-line in the standards - every year. (which IMHO is a bit overboard)BUT

I do agree with Barb - even though it isn't written "clearly stated" (out in the open) it is a good management/registrar practice under the current version.

Our external auditor did indicate recently though that the "methods of registration auditing" would be undergoing a change with the new FDIS write-up.

Regards
Jim
--------------------
Edited to correct html.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 07 September 2000).]

 

[Rick Goodson]

I am in agreement with everyone else that it is certainly good practice even though not required.

With regard to the 2000 version, and by reference the 1994 version, Cianfrani, Tsiakals and West make an interesting statement in their new book (ISO 9001:2000 Explained ISBN 0-87389-481-2).

"It is now clear" [2000 version] "that audits are to be carried out periodically. Thought this was implied before, it was not clearly stated. A on-time set of audits to comply with ISO 9001 in order to obtain registraion is not sufficient."

 

[Laura M]

This is how my procedures are set-up right now. Management reviews quality system on a weekly and monthly basis. From these reviews, quartly audits will be scheduled. I beleive this satisfies the requirements for internal audits.

B]

What exactly does management review weekly and monthly? Effectiveness of quality system needs to be a part of management review. Wouldn't you use internal audits for that data?

 

[Randy]

Around here periodically means within the last millinium.

 

[CarolX]

Barb - If I have done my job completely, my procedures should describe exactly how we are doing things now. My "proof" would be, how are we doing it a year from now? That is when I feel an audit is much more effective.

Jim - I concur - periodically means just that. What ever is neccessary, along with the evidience of review to back it up.

Laura - weekly review of inspection results, customer returns, and customer contacts. Monthly review of scrap and rework.

Our field is much to competative to allow internal audits to be truly helpful to us.

Lots to think about .... thanks everyone for your input.

 

[Marc]

A full found of internal audits (system compliance to ISO 9001) has been a 'standard' registrar requirement for a number of years. The value depends on the company -- sometimes it's not a 'real' issue because the focus on the systems and more during the implementation is often sufficient.

More telling is when a registrar hits you during the registration audit for something that they should have spotted during document review or the pre-assessment.

But - I do see these early internal audits as a learning function and I do agree they can be (and typically are) helpful. In some companies they are, in my opinion, quite necessary. I wouldn't do an implementation without a complete round of internal audits late in the project either by me or the company.

> "PERIODICALLY" is CLEAR?

I agree. I don't see this as a change at all from the 1994 version.

> This is how my procedures are set-up right now. Management reviews
> quality system on a weekly and monthly basis. From these reviews,
> quartly audits will be scheduled. I beleive this satisfies the
> requirements for internal audits.

Management review is required to review the results of internal audits but is not related to internal audits (can't substitute for).

> Barb - If I have done my job completely, my procedures should describe
> exactly how we are doing things now. My "proof" would be, how are we
> doing it a year from now? That is when I feel an audit is much more
> effective.

Audits are supposed to prove people are following your procedures and that your systems work. I'm not sure how you're linking procedure content with "..how we're doing it in a year...' Procedures do change and to some extent it is expected (continuous improvement?) that many will change over a year. So - whether or not you're doing something the same way next year as you are now is a non-issue.

I have not been through an implementation where everyone was following procedures as written. Internal audits are supposed to root these people out.

> Our field is much to competative to allow internal audits
> to be truly helpful to us.

I would like to hear your reasoning for this statement.

 

[Kevin Mader]

Originally posted by Randy:
Around here periodically means within the last millinium.

Yipes!! How true, how true...............

But there is always time for corrective action.



[This message has been edited by Kevin Mader (edited 07 September 2000).]