Different Methods CBs (Certified Bodies, aka Registrars) use to Report Audit Findings

[Colin]

Forgive me if this question has been asked before but I wondered what your thoughts were regarding the different methods that CB's use to report findings.

In particular, I was thinking about the report. The CB I used to work for still records the audit trail and all NC's/Obs by hand and the client gets a full copy of everything they record. On the other hand, some CB's leave the client with just a 1 or 2 page summary printed from their laptop but no evidence of the audit trail etc.

Also, some CB's record all NC's/Obs on a single (or more if required!) sheet and have a separate corrective action plan whilst others record each NC on a separate sheet which also carries the CA and follow-up.

What are your thoughts/preferences?

 

[Randy]

Re: Different Methods CBs (Certified Bodies, aka Registrars) use to Report Audit Find

Yeah, you're pretty much correct. What's your point?

Each body does it the way that is most effective for them and agreed to by the client.

In the end who really cares as long as there is something recorded and delivered?

 

[Colin]

Re: Different Methods CBs (Certified Bodies, aka Registrars) use to Report Audit Find

Yeah, you're pretty much correct. What's your point?

I was trying to get opinion on preferences. Is having the full audit trail something that clients want or is it not required? Are you happy with a 1 or 2 page report after 3 or 4 days of audit that you have paid for? Does anyone ever read the details?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Different Methods CBs (Certified Bodies, aka Registrars) use to Report Audit Find

The IAF GD document stipulates:


[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold] 3.4. Assessment report[/FONT]

IAF Guidance to clause 3.4. (G.3.4.1. – G.3.4.7.)​

G.3.4.1 Clause 3.4.1. b) of ISO/IEC Guide 62 requires more than a generic summary statement. The report of findings provided to the certification/registration body shall be of sufficient detail to facilitate and support a certification decision and should include:​

• Areas covered by the assessment (eg. areas of the certification/registration requirements and locations/units/departments/processes/temporary sites of the auditee) including significant audit trails followed and audit techniques utilized (see G 3.2.4);

• Observations made, both positive (eg. noteworthy features) and negative (eg. potential nonconformities);​

• Report (details) of any nonconformities identified supported by objective evidence. Completed questionnaires/checklists/observation logs/assessor notes might form an integral part of the report that covers the above. If these methods are used, these documents shall be submitted to the certification/registration body as evidence to support the certification/registration decision.


G.3.4.2 The first element of clause 3.4.1.e)5) of ISO/IEC Guide 62 requires the report to contain comments on the conformity of the organization’s quality management system with the certification/registration requirements. This can be satisfied by a brief ‘written’ statement summarising the overall findings (conclusion) of the assessment and a statement of judgement as to the organization’s capability of systematically meeting agreed requirements for any product or service supplied within the field specified on the certificate.


G.3.4.3. The second element of Clause 3.4.1.e)5) of ISO/IEC Guide 62 requires these comments to include a clear statement of nonconformity. This can be addressed by the normal methods used by certification/registration bodies for the reporting of nonconformities.

G.3.4.4. The final element of clause 3.4.1.e)5) of ISO/IEC Guide 62 “and, where applicable, any useful comparison with the results of previous assessment of the supplier”, does not apply to initial assessments but is relevant only to corrective action follow up visits, partial reassessments and surveillance visits.

G.3.4.5. In addition to the requirements for reporting in clause 3.4.1.e) of ISO/IEC Guide 62, this information should cover:

• The degree of reliance that can be placed on the internal audit;

• A summary of the most important observations, positive as well as negative, regarding the implementation of the quality management system;

• The conclusions reached by the audit team.​

I believe that it is a reasonable expectation that assessment reports to be comprehensive and provide adequate level of data. Unfortunately, some CB's and their auditors have an "assembly-line" approach to audit, with inadequate planning, pop-up at the site, ask semi-intelligent questions, fill out as few forms as possible and forget that client until the next assessment is due. [/FONT]​