I don't agree with many of these "conventional wisdoms". My experiences tell me that it's time to move on from what was done 10, 20 and 30 years ago in the name of auditing. People like to talk about auditing and continuous improvement in the same breath, but rarely do we actually see any improvement in the way audits are done. The evidence of this is all around us. I refuse to debate or explain my point of view, because it is borne of my unique experiences. I post for those search here for help and who are not shackled by "we've always done it that way".
Consistently Late Internal Audits- Any Suggestions?
- Thread starter Buckeye001
- Start date
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
When I train an internal auditor, I do review the AS9100 standard clauses that are applicable to the process they are auditing. I don't expect them to be an expert, I just want them to have an awareness of why certain things are important, etc. They still do not audit against the standard; they audit against the procedures and other internal requirements. I've attached my internal auditor training thingy. It lists which of our internal procedures they have to be knowledgeable of in order to audit that process.
I keep an AS9100 clause by clause compliance matrix for myself to keep track of things that are not covered by documented procedures. When I change a document, or the standard changes, I update my matrix and ensure we're still covering all of the AS9100 requirements.
I keep an AS9100 clause by clause compliance matrix for myself to keep track of things that are not covered by documented procedures. When I change a document, or the standard changes, I update my matrix and ensure we're still covering all of the AS9100 requirements.
Last edited:
And as auditors we could ask why the system had not already flagged the system weakness that the auditee has just agreed.
But do we?
It's hard to tell if you are replying to me or not....but if you are, IMO it's only "time to move on" from how you do audits if what you're doing doesn't work and you have found a better way.
I've revised how we do audits several times in the last few years. Yes, continual improvement. But I don't consider it an improvement to have my internal auditors audit against the standard. YMMV.
And I don't consider myself above debating or explaining my point of view.
Is it a system weakness or a human weakness? I suggest the latter, and that the system can accommodate by a second reviewer when the risk is high enough to justify it. Even accomplished published authors have editors.
If we see this type of error on a wide scale, I would hope we point it out. I haven't though, I only found it occasionally.
I have no question about this concept, but not knowing which "conventional wisdom" you are referring to or how you propose to improve it makes it hard to discuss the manner of moving on in a meaningful way.
Would it be auditing to the standard? I fully support value-added auditing, but every year the CB shows up and cites the standard if handing out NCs. Most managers would agree it would be better to reduce that risk using internal audits, besides the standard explicitly requiring audits to "...verify effectiveness of the QMS" which is conforming to that same standard.
Would it be noticing and calling attention to documentation that is incorrect, incomplete, or inconsistent? Where is the value in not doing that, assuming the documentation was written to define standard work in pursuit of customer satisfaction?
This type of approach can be so valuable, and throws an audit off schedule if one is not really careful. But if it's important enough (and I have had cases where it was) I apologize for taking somewhat longer and/or come back to it later. I can come back later in cases where a time stamp would be available for evidence something is happening, such as digital records of scheduled "bump" testing for gas analyzers.
It is hard to explore questions in depth here. We do try but there is always a limit to what we can see.
Many companies use a consultant to help them set up the system initially. Some consultants are more competent than others.
But the system includes humans as workers. It also influences worker behavior which also part of the system. Hence the need for objective auditors to avoid making the system depend on them for its repair or improvement.
Internal auditors probably cannot separate themselves from the system they audit.
As to avoiding mistakes, auditors agree their objective with the auditee, agree their audit criteria with the auditee and agree the audit plan with the auditee. And we both know that the evidence of each and every audit finding is agreed with the auditee.
Johnnymo62
Haste Makes Waste
Maybe this thread should be moved into the Auditing Quality and Environmental Management Systems section of this forum.
Similar threads
