Re: How do you handle an arrogant auditor?
It really depends upon what think is arbitrary. I've had more than one client/auditee raise objections about "my" interpretations, except I don't interpret. What I do is use the entire standard especially the stuff in front or behind the "shall's and in the case of 9K I use 9000:2005 to help show where I am coming from. I don't audit to that other stuff, but it is relevant, especially when it come to definitions.
One recent "discussion" had to do with my "interpretation" of the internal audit program requirement and their internal audit program procedure. They had both a QMS and EMS and the internal audit requirements are identical, and I quote:
9001:2000 - The organization shall conduct internal audits at planned intervals to determine whether the quality management system
a) conforms to the planned arrangements (see 7.1), to the requirements of this International Standard and to the quality management system requirements established by the organization....
14001:2004 - The organization shall ensure that internal audits of the environmental management system are conducted at planned intervals to
a) determine whether the environmental management system
1) conforms to planned arrangements for environmental management including the requirements of this International Standard,
Here is esentially what thier procedure said: "The purpose of the internal audit program and conduct of internal audit is to determine non-conformities within the management systems..."
The problem came up when I said the procedure and conduct of audits did not meet the requirements and and a non-conformity exists. Well guess what happened on their part?


It was even worse than that, thay had adopted 100% the corporate procedure and the systems had been in place a couple of years. I was the new kid on the block and immediately I was wrong because I was "interpreting".
In the end guess what....re-written procedure. Why? It wasn't interpretation, it was what it was, and a new set of eyes that saw the tree's in the forest.
An audit, if done correctly, is nothing more than a representative sampling of the whole...kinda like getting a single piece from a whole cherry pie. Its understood that one piece should taste the same as another if taken from the same pie. Occasionally though something happens, a pit gets left in a cherry, some dough doesn't mix or cook right, maybe the sugar didn't get blended in the same....that's what happens in the audit. We taste the same pie in different areas and sometimes it tastes the same and sometimes we get a pit.
This is what I teach and how I teach it. Auditing is not an exact science, it escapes quantification because of the variables...like the pie. Once we understand and accept that we can then lay out the basics and work on tightening up the variables....understanding that they will always be there. Auditors are a variable and that is why I will spend so much time trying to get them to look at the "word's", to understand their meaning and to understand their relationships to the other "words"
How would you handle an auditor who is arbitrary in application of the requirements in many cases making interpretations outside of the cope of the standard, and at one instance accepts the quality system as adequate and then 4 months later identifies multiple non-conformances when the system itself is unchaged?
It really depends upon what think is arbitrary. I've had more than one client/auditee raise objections about "my" interpretations, except I don't interpret. What I do is use the entire standard especially the stuff in front or behind the "shall's and in the case of 9K I use 9000:2005 to help show where I am coming from. I don't audit to that other stuff, but it is relevant, especially when it come to definitions.
One recent "discussion" had to do with my "interpretation" of the internal audit program requirement and their internal audit program procedure. They had both a QMS and EMS and the internal audit requirements are identical, and I quote:
9001:2000 - The organization shall conduct internal audits at planned intervals to determine whether the quality management system
a) conforms to the planned arrangements (see 7.1), to the requirements of this International Standard and to the quality management system requirements established by the organization....
14001:2004 - The organization shall ensure that internal audits of the environmental management system are conducted at planned intervals to
a) determine whether the environmental management system
1) conforms to planned arrangements for environmental management including the requirements of this International Standard,
Here is esentially what thier procedure said: "The purpose of the internal audit program and conduct of internal audit is to determine non-conformities within the management systems..."
The problem came up when I said the procedure and conduct of audits did not meet the requirements and and a non-conformity exists. Well guess what happened on their part?


It was even worse than that, thay had adopted 100% the corporate procedure and the systems had been in place a couple of years. I was the new kid on the block and immediately I was wrong because I was "interpreting".
In the end guess what....re-written procedure. Why? It wasn't interpretation, it was what it was, and a new set of eyes that saw the tree's in the forest.
An audit, if done correctly, is nothing more than a representative sampling of the whole...kinda like getting a single piece from a whole cherry pie. Its understood that one piece should taste the same as another if taken from the same pie. Occasionally though something happens, a pit gets left in a cherry, some dough doesn't mix or cook right, maybe the sugar didn't get blended in the same....that's what happens in the audit. We taste the same pie in different areas and sometimes it tastes the same and sometimes we get a pit.
This is what I teach and how I teach it. Auditing is not an exact science, it escapes quantification because of the variables...like the pie. Once we understand and accept that we can then lay out the basics and work on tightening up the variables....understanding that they will always be there. Auditors are a variable and that is why I will spend so much time trying to get them to look at the "word's", to understand their meaning and to understand their relationships to the other "words"
Last edited:

