Do We Have to Comply with Our Own Procedures?

[tyker]

It would appear to be just the opposite.

Auditors would be auditing "where the rubber meets the road", not from an ivory tower. To me, that would be closer, not more remote.

Sorry but I just don't understand this response.

 

[tyker]

I guess it may be a matter of perspective.

Auditors need to audit the actual practice. That needs to be compared to both what the standard requires and to what they have documented or if no documentation exists on the topic what they say they do.

To me, auditing the actual practice is closer, not more distant, but if it is different from where you are standing you are welcome to your opinion and I respect that.

I agree with you but I didn't advocate anything different to this in my earlier post.
One of my concerns is that an auditor applying an arcane interpretation of ISO 9001 requirements, as I believe John Broomfield is doing, drives a wedge between non-quality specialists in business and the certification industry. I think we should be trying to simplify requirements and get rid of the need for interpretations rather than turning the whole thing into a specialist field that only a quality geek can understand.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

rather than turning the whole thing into a specialist field that only a quality geek can understand.

I agree wholeheartedly. If one has to read ISO 9001 as if deciphering the Da Vinci Code, we are screwed....

 

[Big Jim]

Sorry but I just don't understand this response.

It may be easier to see if you put yourself in Paul's shoes. That is who I was responding to. I don't think it reflects on your comments.

 

[John Broomfield]

John, you are 100% entitled to your opinion. But I would think that, if that was the REAL intent of the ISO TC176, FOR SURE, they would have made that clear through the NUMEROUS documents they issue to support proper ISO 9001 deployment. For example, I would expect to see something that supports your "theory" in the Auditing Practices Group page under the TC176 website.

But I don't find anything that matches your perspective. Actually, I do find the following suggestion in the Audit Trail paper:

Sidney,

I agree. Auditors should take their time to find out what the auditee's customers and managers require. These are audit criteria.

Auditors then gather evidence of how well the management system helps the employees to fulfill the audit criteria.

Auditors should not attempt to enforce procedures for processes that previously were not effectively monitored by the auditee. Instead the auditor should take their time to find out what the auditee's customers and managers require.

By evaluating the evidence of how well the management system helps the employees to determine and fulfill requirements the auditor can report on the effectiveness of the management system for any needed corrective action.

Some auditors seem willing to replace the commitment missing from top management. This conceals the real system weakness of poor leadership. Then, after the audit reports employees for failing to obey procedures, the managers say "do whatever the auditor says so we can pass the audit".

Surely we'd rather auditees addressed their leadership weaknesses than blame their employees for not following procedures to "pass the audit"?

John

 

[John Broomfield]

Don't you hate that when ISO says "Shall" ?
Actually, we don't have to do anything as a company, but since there are measures in place (set by yours truly) and rules to follow, but let's not even get into the fact that our major customer requested us to be ISO certified.
Most people don't comply, so it's up to the watchdogs or police of the company to watch over everything, but that is why we get paid the big bucks, right????

aliasJohnQ,

Unless you are the boss of the people doing the work you are not in a position to demand conformity. Better to determine the requirements of the leaders and how they enable their process teams to fulfill these requirements.

As you do this you compare the requirements of the leaders with those of the customers, standards and the law. You then resolve any discrepancies with the leaders so they have the opportunity to correct their requirements.

Then by involving the leaders in the development of their process-based organizational management system you can help them to help the employees to understand and fulfill the requirements.

The leaders understand their management system well enough to monitor it and engage employees in making it work effectively without you having to intervene all the time.

You then audit and report how well the management system is helping the employees to meet requirements so the leaders can improve it as necessary. Your auditing includes the effectiveness of process monitoring by the employees and their leaders.

All the best,

John

 

[Paul Simpson]

<snip>Unless you are the boss of the people doing the work you are not in a position to demand conformity. </snip>

Looks like some people are more into 'command and control' then they would have you believe ... or is the rest of the post some gentle U turning?

 

[John Broomfield]

Looks like some people are more into 'command and control' then they would have you believe ... or is the rest of the post some gentle U turning?

Paul,

I was responding to this:

"Most people don't comply, so it's up to the watchdogs or police of the company to watch over everything, but that is why we get paid the big bucks, right????"

But new leaders can change even the most entrenched command and control environments and they need no management reps or auditors to enforce their procedures.

John

 

[John Broomfield]

All,

I am pleased to report that ISO Guide 83 with recommended text to use in our beloved management system standards includes the following clauses:

5.1 Leadership and commitment
Top management shall demonstrate leadership and commitment with respect to the management system by… communicating the importance of conforming to the management system requirements.

7.3 Awareness
Persons doing work under the organization’s control shall be aware of the implications of not conforming with the management system requirements.

John

 

[Paul Simpson]

All,

I am pleased to report that ISO Guide 83 with recommended text to use in our beloved management system standards includes the following clauses:

5.1 Leadership and commitment
Top management shall demonstrate leadership and commitment with respect to the management system by… communicating the importance of conforming to the management system requirements.

7.3 Awareness
Persons doing work under the organization’s control shall be aware of the implications of not conforming with the management system requirements.

John

So after all the principled 'brave new world' stuff over the last few weeks you're now 'pleased to report' there is a 'you shall follow procedures' requirement to be built in to the common text?