Evaluation of Readiness of Organization for 3rd Party Audit

L

lobotm6

Involved In Discussions
Hello to All,

I am preparing our organization for our 3rd party surveillance audit in the 1st quarter of the year and would need any suggestions that could help to measure the readiness of the processes.

In my view, I am preparing a dashboard (or say a barometer) that will be based on the following per each process:
- % non-conformity closed out from internal audits
- % reviewed/revised mandatory documents
- % relevant records in place
- % calibration status (for relevant processes)
-% compliance to legal & statutory requirements (permits, certificates etc.)

Is there a better way than this to evaluate the readiness? Are there some more parameters I can add to the above list?

Your recommendations are greatly appreciated.

Regards.
 
M

mattador78

Quite Involved in Discussions
What does you gap analysis and internal audits say you are missing? And what % is your magic number for readiness is your audit against AS9100 or AS9001 for example as one requires a geater level of readiness from the other.
 
L

lobotm6

Involved In Discussions
mattador78 said:
What does you gap analysis and internal audits say you are missing? And what % is your magic number for readiness is your audit against AS9100 or AS9001 for example as one requires a geater level of readiness from the other.
Click to expand...
Actually the management systems we are certidied to are 9001, 14001 and 45001
 
John C. Abnet

John C. Abnet

Teacher, sensei, kennari
Leader
Super Moderator
lobotm6 said:
Hello to All,

I am preparing our organization for our 3rd party surveillance audit in the 1st quarter of the year and would need any suggestions that could help to measure the readiness of the processes.

Regards.
Click to expand...

Good day @lobotm6 ;
I would offer the following...

- % non-conformity closed out from internal audits
There is no "ISO" requirement" for % closed.
* Were nonconformities addressed without "undue delay?
* Were all applied corrective actions confirmed to be effective?
- % reviewed/revised mandatory documents
* There is no "ISO" requirement for reviewing/revising documents (and certainly no applicable "%" measurable ). The only requirements for
"review/revised" are..
- when "creating or updating....(were they reviewed for suitability? Were changes controlled [e.g. revision history] ?
- % relevant records in place
* How about simply ensuring 100% of relevant records are in place and serving their intended purpose?
- % calibration status (for relevant processes)
* Does your organization have measurement devices that require calibration? (simply verification?).
- How about ensuring 100% have been calibrated and/or verified at the frequencies to which your organization subscribes?
-% compliance to legal & statutory requirements (permits, certificates etc.)
* Why would your organization be willing to accept anything less than 100% compliance to legal and statutory requirements?

I would counsel that your organization moves away from a "%" measurable in this context.

Keep in mind. If it's required, then your 3rd party auditor will potentially (likely), write a nonconformance finding for anything that is not as required (and likely not be interested in whether "5%" is not as it should be or "20%" is not as it should be).

It sounds as if your organization is already certified and has previous surveillance audits. How did your organization operate ("prepare") previously? Was that method effective ?


Hope you find these considerations helpful.

Be well.
 
Last edited:
Randy

Randy

Super Moderator
You are setting yourself up for failure if your auditor is worth his salt.
lobotm6 said:
- % relevant records in place
Click to expand...
I'd ask why you aren't controlling all your records and your answer would be supporting evidence of the NC I'd probably issue fo ineffective document control. The seriousness would determine Minor or Major

lobotm6 said:
-% compliance to legal & statutory requirements (permits, certificates etc.)
Click to expand...
If you say anything less than 100% you're probably toast, especially for 14001 & 45001. You've committed to 100% in your policy and that's the minimum, not meeting it goes against your policy and creating/setting a percentage demonstrates planning of non-fulfillment, the consequences of which could be very painful.

You pull up and present that dashboard to me and you'll be opening Pandora's Box while reaching for a big, foaming mug of Hemlock with regards to the success of your audit. You've provided me some absolutely fantastic audit trails a blindfolded blind man could follow in a coal mine, after dark, during the dark of the moon.

Here's to ya :thanx:
 
L

lobotm6

Involved In Discussions
John C. Abnet said:
Good day @lobotm6 ;

It sounds as if your organization is already certified and has previous surveillance audits. How did your organization operate ("prepare") previously? Was that method effective ?


Hope you find these considerations helpful.

Be well.
Click to expand...

VERY HELPFUL John.
Yes, we are already certified and have had previous surveillance audits.
For continuous improvement and easy follow up on areas needing close attention, I thought of developing such dashboard (or something of its kind), at least to quantify the level of readiness per process or site. And in that way also I can focus on the areas that need urgent attention.
 
L

lobotm6

Involved In Discussions
Randy said:
You are setting yourself up for failure if your auditor is worth his salt.

I'd ask why you aren't controlling all your records and your answer would be supporting evidence of the NC I'd probably issue fo ineffective document control. The seriousness would determine Minor or Major


If you say anything less than 100% you're probably toast, especially for 14001 & 45001. You've committed to 100% in your policy and that's the minimum, not meeting it goes against your policy and creating/setting a percentage demonstrates planning of non-fulfillment, the consequences of which could be very painful.

You pull up and present that dashboard to me and you'll be opening Pandora's Box while reaching for a big, foaming mug of Hemlock with regards to the success of your audit. You've provided me some absolutely fantastic audit trails a blindfolded blind man could follow in a coal mine, after dark, during the dark of the moon.

Here's to ya :thanx:
Click to expand...

Good RANDY. I really agree to and appreciate your recommendations and will consider them.
In fact, the dashboard (or something of its kind) I want to develop is a personal follow tool I want to use in order to measure our readiness level and to allow focus on areas needing urgent attention. It won't be for the auditors' "consumption".

My regards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S ISO9001:2015 and ISO14001:2015 Readiness/Self Evaluation Checklists wanted ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
J US based company no longer selling in the EU: Clinical Evaluation Report and PMS requirements EU Medical Device Regulations 1
R 5.6.1.2 Initial Supplier Evaluation—Critical Purchases Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 4
A Clinical Evaluation Report Between Class I and Class IIa CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 2
M Clinical evaluation process of FDA and MDR Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 2
J API Q1 - 5.6.1.2 (b) - Initial Supplier Evaluation—Critical Purchases Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 1
B Clinical evaluation according to equivalence with another device EU Medical Device Regulations 4
Doninina Biological evaluation procedure or plan EU Medical Device Regulations 3
J Critical Supplier Initial evaluation for single purchases Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 16
T Supplier Evaluation - *ALL* Suppliers to business? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
N Unused proceses (Clinical Evaluation) ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
M An introductory guide to medical device Clinical Evaluation & Clinical Evaluation Reports (CER) EU Medical Device Regulations 0
J Applicable Great Britain regulations for a custom-built test rig or evaluation kit used for research purposes only. Design and Development of Products and Processes 0
H MDR clinical evaluation EU Medical Device Regulations 0
I Supplier Evaluation Process ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
B Supplier Evaluation report - Validation required or not ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
Soog1459 Impact to clinical evaluation of MDCG2022-14 EU Medical Device Regulations 2
R Clinical evaluation for instrument of a navigation system EU Medical Device Regulations 1
I Formative evaluation report IEC 62366 - Medical Device Usability Engineering 1
A Loss of certification because of outdated information in the Clinical Evaluation Report CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 8
M Supplier Evaluation for Cold Chain Distribution of Human Tissues Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 3
R MDR Clinical Evaluation Plan EU Medical Device Regulations 6
R Clinical Evaluation - state of the art literature search EU Medical Device Regulations 5
J Clinical Evaluation For Instruments - Class I, Class Ir, Class Im, and Class IIa - EU MDR EU Medical Device Regulations 4
M Clinical evaluation interface with the risk management process EU Medical Device Regulations 9
L Clinical Evaluation MDR EU Medical Device Regulations 15
L Supplier performance evaluation Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 8
J Revamping Supplier Qualification, Re-evaluation, and Monitoring Requirements ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 8
J ISO 9001:2015 Is a Project Evaluation form necessary? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
I Clinical evaluation for legacy device EU Medical Device Regulations 16
M Clinical evaluation report training EU Medical Device Regulations 3
MaHoDie Summative Evaluation with Post-Market Data? Human Factors and Ergonomics in Engineering 2
K Continue to do clinical evaluation? or transfer to RA? or focus on clinical studies as MA? Career and Occupation Discussions 1
O CLINICAL EVALUATION - VACCUM PLANTS Other Medical Device Related Standards 4
B Evaluation of suppliers API Spec Q1 5.6.1.2c Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 2
B Creation and evaluation of new jobs Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 0
E DESIGN VALIDATION, USABILITY AND CLINICAL EVALUATION request Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Summative evaluation: how many sample per participant? IEC 62366 - Medical Device Usability Engineering 5
SANTHSH Consumables, Paints, End-covers, NDE Chemicals & Tools suppliers classification and evaluation Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 6
Aymaneh IVDR and Performance Evaluation Plan EU Medical Device Regulations 2
S Clinical Evaluation of equivalent device EU Medical Device Regulations 7
L Clinical evaluation plan EU Medical Device Regulations 17
C Biologic Evaluation based on ISO 10993-1 EU Medical Device Regulations 2
M Selling non-CE marked devices for evaluation EU Medical Device Regulations 4
M Procedure for clinical evaluation according to new MDR EU Medical Device Regulations 14
Q Process map Evaluation and Analysis Method Process Maps, Process Mapping and Turtle Diagrams 5
M Supplier evaluation Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 5
I QMS monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation requirement - Template ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
T Biological Evaluation (10993) & Risk Management ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 9
shimonv Clinical evaluation report for class I device EU Medical Device Regulations 18

Similar threads

Top Bottom