IATF 16949:2016 Cl. 7.2.3 Internal Auditor Competency Requirements

[Stijloor]

There is not even a requirement for an "Internal Lead Auditor" or for this person to be "Certified." The main requirement is that folks engaging in audits must be COMPETENT. The competency requirements are stated in the IATF 16949:2009 Standard.

 

[danangsuryowardhono]

Thanks

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

 

[danangsuryowardhono]

Yeah i have read in other discussion.. thanks Sir..

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

 

[Stijloor]

Thanks

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

For example: 3rd Party Auditors will verify (through audit reports/records) that the automotive process audit approach was used during the audit. If they find that the old-style checklist or the clause-by-clause approach was used, you're in trouble. Anything that deviates from the required auditors' demonstrated ability to apply skills and knowledge, is a nonconformity against the competency requirement.

 

[kybluegrass]

Your lead internal auditor will likely set the requirements to BE an internal auditor. Then you will need to document the education/training/auditing that has occurred for each auditor in ISO or MSA or auditing principles, etc. Add in the time they spent on gap analysis from TS to IATF, toss in the time they spent on APQP teams working on the FMEA's etc. Talk about the time they spent with consultants or other internal auditors defending their gap/FMEA's/audits. Explain that all the audits counting toward IATF were done to the new ISO/IATF clauses. Show your CB auditors that you are using these tools to evaluate their competency.
We passed our IATF16949 audit in June.

 

[malasuerte]

Correct!!!

 

[malasuerte]

So I received an email from our registrar and they specifically addressed internal auditor competency. Basically they compared the requirements of their auditors and the 12+ hours they spent upgrading their qualifications with the suggestion that anything less could be a problem for internal auditors. As I suggested, it's trending toward "certified" internal auditors.

FALSE! INCORRECT and UNTRUE!

Any registrar requiring an external certification would be grounds for an appeal.

Auditors must be trained and competent. ISO 19001 plus the standards provide guidelines on what this means.

 

[Golfman25]

FALSE! INCORRECT and UNTRUE!

Any registrar requiring an external certification would be grounds for an appeal.

Auditors must be trained and competent. ISO 19001 plus the standards provide guidelines on what this means.

So it is FALSE, INCORRECT and UNTRUE that it is TRENDIND towards "certified" internal auditors? The original standard didn't require a process map. But guess what, everyone did them and the 4th edition rules essentially required one. Sure, a registrar couldn't require an external certificate. But they can make it very difficult for you to "pass" without one. You can really go down a rabbit hole with this. Trust me, in several years some type of "certification" will be "normal" and "expected" and the easy way out.

 

[kybluegrass]

A class or certificate for an internal auditor course whether taught on-site of off-site only means they are trained, does not show competency.

 

[ISOexcited]

There is nothing in the standard that states a certification is required.
What I have seen done is a sort of job shadow. The QA Manager (who has an extensive background in ISO standards) took a newly selected internal auditor on several internal audits as a co-auditor. After x amount of hours the new auditor then performed their own audit and submitted it for review. This was used to prove competency, and the new auditor was then authorized to perform internal audits on their own.