Disruptions that happen prior to surveillance audit

[ronswanson]

A quick background:
- small manufacturing company with less than 20 employees
-ISO 9001 certified since 2009.
-surveillance audit is less than two weeks away.
-lost 3 key employees in last 30 days (1 not a surprise, 2 a surprise),

My concern is that the auditor will not be auditing a system with the key employees yet in place, and it's not a real representation of what has consistently occurred in the last 11 years.

I don't want the registrar or auditor to think we're trying to avoid or get out of the audit, but we need some time to adjust and react to this disruption.

I believe that contacting the registrar is the correct step and find out what are options are.

We don't want to jeopardize our certification, and it may be that we still go through the surveillance audit and take our lumps (so to speak). But we can't be the first business where something like this has happened. This issue is unlike anything we've dealt with in the 13 years of certification, so any feedback or insight would be very much appreciated.

 

[geoffairey]

Your External Auditor should reasonably agree to your request to postpone.

However, if they don’t this is where your management system should shine. ISO 9001 explicitly covers these sorts of eventualities.

Hopefully in such a small company, your risk assessment against the loss of key staff and your plans to cope with that possibility have been put into action Since they resigned. I would suggest though that the loss of 3 key members of staff in quick succession is not a foreseeable risk (unless they’re all in a lottery syndicate together and won mega bucks) So the Auditor should cut you some slack, so long as you are doing the right things.

Organisational Knowledge should be protected per ISO 9001 7.1.6, whether that is documents and records, a second person trained to cover (e.g. when each person is on holiday) or the ability to bring someone in temporarily to fulfil a role.

On top of this, if all of the activities carried out until the resignations were compliant, that is what the auditor is assessing.

 

[Steve Prevette]

An auditor could be interested in - how resilient your system was to the disruption, what is the quality of the path forward . . .

 

[Randy]

Here's some feedback...................It ain't the people, it's the process and you're required to "maintain".

Has the loss of those people caused you to turn off the lights and lock the doors? Most likely "no", so guess what, the audit goes as planned. That's exactly what'd I'd say, in fact that's exactly what I've said more than once.

Oh yeah, if it's 2 weeks away you should know right now what's in the audit plan, it shouldn't be a surprise,

Nothing should depend on "people" being or not being there. (When I hear that guess where I going to look?)

 

[ronswanson]

Here's some feedback...................It ain't the people, it's the process and you're required to "maintain".

Has the loss of those people caused you to turn off the lights and lock the doors? Most likely "no", so guess what, the audit goes as planned. That's exactly what'd I'd say, in fact that's exactly what I've said more than once.

Oh yeah, if it's 2 weeks away you should know right now what's in the audit plan, it shouldn't be a surprise,

Nothing should depend on "people" being or not being there. (When I hear that guess where I going to look?)

Your 100% correct. I’m still in shock this actually happened, and my original post is more of a reflection of my panicked emotional state; these events occurring so close to the audit. Our system has not been put into this state of flux since it’s inception. We have done risk assessment for loss of key people so we’re working through those steps now. It’s going to take some to see them through. Ultimately this will be a good thing for our business and for the system itself…..they both get a chance to mature. I sincerely appreciate your feedback.

 

[Randy]

Our system has not been put into this state of flux since it’s inception.

Good deal, but here's a big problem that you share with a ton of other so you're not alone...........The absence of or change in people should not cause any "breakage" whatsoever or create any "flux" as you put it. It's all about PROCESS not PEOPLE. Sure, people are part of the process but they aren't the process.

To see a MS that, regardless of what's going on in and around it, continues to function without fluctuation, is a thing of beauty, I've seen it, if not for confidentiality I would name it, but I can't (I was with them last week).

It's a very hard thing to do, but it can be done

 

[geoffairey]

The absence of or change in people should not cause any "breakage" whatsoever or create any "flux" as you put it. It's all about PROCESS not PEOPLE. Sure, people are part of the process but they aren't the process.”

While I see what you’re saying, and I’d agree to a certain extent for 1 person, to lose 3 people in a 20 person company (15%), especially if they have key roles, is not a foreseeable risk given the previous 11 years.

Even if Processes are in place and documented alongside procedures, that doesn’t mean someone else can just pick them up and there may not have been enough resource to cross train people regularly.

 

[ronswanson]

Good deal, but here's a big problem that you share with a ton of other so you're not alone...........The absence of or change in people should not cause any "breakage" whatsoever or create any "flux" as you put it. It's all about PROCESS not PEOPLE. Sure, people are part of the process but they aren't the process.

To see a MS that, regardless of what's going on in and around it, continues to function without fluctuation, is a thing of beauty, I've seen it, if not for confidentiality I would name it, but I can't (I was with them last week).

It's a very hard thing to do, but it can be done

Good deal, but here's a big problem that you share with a ton of other so you're not alone...........The absence of or change in people should not cause any "breakage" whatsoever or create any "flux" as you put it. It's all about PROCESS not PEOPLE. Sure, people are part of the process but they aren't the process.

To see a MS that, regardless of what's going on in and around it, continues to function without fluctuation, is a thing of beauty, I've seen it, if not for confidentiality I would name it, but I can't (I was with them last week).

It's a very hard thing to do, but it can be done

While I see what you’re saying, and I’d agree to a certain extent for 1 person, to lose 3 people in a 20 person company (15%), especially if they have key roles, is not a foreseeable risk given the previous 11 years.

Even if Processes are in place and documented alongside procedures, that doesn’t mean someone else can just pick them up and there may not have been enough resource to cross train people regularly.

This is a more accurate representation of our current situation. Our system already designated who the "backups" are for each process. The people now tasked to fill-in have already begun to do so. But the increased responsibilities place an incredible strain on the already limited resources of a small company such as this. The replacements alone will take weeks to fill. I hate the thought of an auditor coming in to audit where they'd be talking to the same 3 or 4 people the entire day. It's not an accurate representation of what's gone on here for the last 13 years, but that's the reality of the current situation. We're not trying to hide anything, but I want to be as open and transparent as I can be. We'll most likely just keep the audit date, because I believe any potential findings would be completely fixable.
Thanks for your feedback, its much appreciated!

 

[Mike S.]

The loss of 3 out of 20 employees "shouldn't" break the system or cause a major disruption, but in many companies I think it will, to some degree at least. Especially now, with so many companies low on staff for one reason or another (often self-inflicted).

I am very familiar with an aerospace company running so bare-bones, not replacing people that leave, running the business totally on the finance numbers, that they are in serious danger of being late on many orders if just 1 or 2 more people leave. But top management is rolling the dice. They never think they'll hit snake-eyes.

 

[mattador78]

The loss of 3 out of 20 employees "shouldn't" break the system or cause a major disruption, but in many companies I think it will, to some degree at least. Especially now, with so many companies low on staff for one reason or another (often self-inflicted).

I am very familiar with an aerospace company running so bare-bones, not replacing people that leave, running the business totally on the finance numbers, that they are in serious danger of being late on many orders if just 1 or 2 more people leave. But top management is rolling the dice. They never think they'll hit snake-eyes.

We suffer at the moment with our bottom 10% of the work force the three or four people who are always leaving just as you train them up. Ive worked here 25+ years and always theres been one person who is with us 6-12 months or stayed and then sombody further up the ladder as left and they have replaced them, the usual turn over. Since the pandemic started its been ridiculous, its not the job or the pay, the jobs got easier and the pay is well above the minimum wage it just seems to be a mentality of the younger staff its all gig economy. Work 12 weeks and the agency will find me another job so it doesnt matter if im late or have time off there is always another job. Im 44 left school got a job while i was waiting go in the army at 17, left that at 19 worked for my dad for 6 months and got the job here. So four jobs in 28 years whereas there as some 18 years olds coming here with 4 jobs in 28 days!