IATF 16949:2016 Internal Auditor & 2nd Party Auditor Qualifications & Competency

[anneliesehuss]

It sounds like your company is using same registrar as mine. lol
last year we had a similar nonconformance. I was the only certified auditor at my facility and training someone to audit.

I put together a very nice training plan complete with tests and practical application. Which he completed and was documented on our skill matrix and his training plan

Our skill matrix rates competency as
0= none
1= basic understanding
2= can do with supervision
3= can perform independently
4= can train others

At the time, I showed this matrix to the auditor as evidence of competency and had each core tool listed, and the trainee was rated at a 3 for each item.

The auditor argued he should be at a 4 to perform audits or be 3rd part certified.

I showed in the standard that it states auditor must be "competent" and have an "understanding" of core tools. Additionally I showed the sanctioned interpretation that says we can train them internally but trainers certification must be on record.(mine was)... and the auditor got a little flustered and changed his mind from a major NC to a minor NC.

Our countermeasure was same as yours. The trainee took the free (to members) AIAG elearning core tools course which is about a half hour of PowerPoint slides and about 2 questions which don't matter if you get it correct. You still get the certificate of completion and the auditor was happy with that. A total joke really.

Now, as an added measure, I've added a routine retaking of the core tools self assessment which is also free (to members) to assess my auditors understanding and skill them up in the core tools they score a bit lower on. (I also use questions from this assessment for my own quizzes for internal auditor training)

 

[Crimpshrine13]

It sounds like your company is using same registrar as mine. lol
last year we had a similar nonconformance. I was the only certified auditor at my facility and training someone to audit.

I put together a very nice training plan complete with tests and practical application. Which he completed and was documented on our skill matrix and his training plan

Our skill matrix rates competency as
0= none
1= basic understanding
2= can do with supervision
3= can perform independently
4= can train others

At the time, I showed this matrix to the auditor as evidence of competency and had each core tool listed, and the trainee was rated at a 3 for each item.

The auditor argued he should be at a 4 to perform audits or be 3rd part certified.

I showed in the standard that it states auditor must be "competent" and have an "understanding" of core tools. Additionally I showed the sanctioned interpretation that says we can train them internally but trainers certification must be on record.(mine was)... and the auditor got a little flustered and changed his mind from a major NC to a minor NC.

Our countermeasure was same as yours. The trainee took the free (to members) AIAG elearning core tools course which is about a half hour of PowerPoint slides and about 2 questions which don't matter if you get it correct. You still get the certificate of completion and the auditor was happy with that. A total joke really.

Now, as an added measure, I've added a routine retaking of the core tools self assessment which is also free (to members) to assess my auditors understanding and skill them up in the core tools they score a bit lower on. (I also use questions from this assessment for my own quizzes for internal auditor training)

Thanks for your feedback. Your skill matrix system is actually the same as ours (in 4 ranks).

That was exactly what I was thinking about the training. Do AIAG free (for members) eLearning core tools courses, then do the free self-assessment (for verification of the competency). I just thought these $295 ea. core tools exams were an overkill for internal auditors because they are mainly meant for the 3rd party auditors (which is required every 3 years to be a certified 3rd party auditors). I assume you keep track of the core tools self-assessment scores somewhere as periodical verifications and auditor maintenance?

Some of the opinions and comments that come from some auditors are not to the specifications, only their opinions, but they make it sound like as if we're not complying to the standards. I've seen plenty of 3rd party auditors do this. And many companies end up spending $$$ just to satisfy these auditors. I get it that maybe some of the external trainings are good, but these certificates does not automatically make them competent, but some auditors like to see the certificates rather than hands on training in your practical work environment...

You are lucky that you got the major to a minor. In our case, the auditor cited 11 major nonconformances (a few were overlapping to each other and I do not know why she did it that way because she said she eliminated a few because one is solved the other is also solved). I've never seen this many and in the classification of major in the past ever. And going 0 nonconformances last year to 11 major nonconformances suddenly? They always say that they audit the same way and they audit to the standard, but that is always the bogus statement because they don't!

We were also cited for not closing out the corrective actions for our parent company over a year (very embarrassing), and our response was that we could not close out because our parent company is not willing to do thorough corrective actions, only making superficial corrections, so we have to keep rejecting them and remain open - the next thing she said was that we should teach them (our parent company) - after the fact she decided that we were incompetent internal auditors...so it is okay in her eyes that incompetent employees teach our parent company's employees, yet completely denying on the legitimacy of our internal auditor competency at the same time...

 

[anneliesehuss]

I assume you keep track of the core tools self-assessment scores somewhere as periodical verifications and auditor maintenance?

I don't have it all documented out just yet, but yes, I had them take the self-assessment and send me their results. Helps to know what they each need to work on.

 

[UncleFester]

I'd love to read the actual N/C for this - there are differences between training, qualification and competence.

 

[Andy04]

Some of the opinions and comments that come from some auditors are not to the specifications, only their opinions, but they make it sound like as if we're not complying to the standards. I've seen plenty of 3rd party auditors do this. And many companies end up spending $$$ just to satisfy these auditors. I get it that maybe some of the external trainings are good, but these certificates does not automatically make them competent, but some auditors like to see the certificates rather than hands on training in your practical work environment...

It is year after year more "all about the money"... Sad.

 

[JF Quality]

We have a bit of a problem right now regarding internal and 2nd party auditor competency. This popped up as a result of renewal audit for IATF 16949.

We have two people who have been trained in some form of auditing from external organizations in the past for ISO 9001, QS 9000, and TS 16949. We grandfathered these certificates as a proof that these people had been trained as internal auditors. These internal auditors were training new internal auditors within our organization and also did internal audits as well, and this never came up as an issue in any of previous audits for 20 years and all audits included review of the qualification and competency in the past, all auditors reviewing the same documents. Suddenly during this audit, the auditor said that these certificates are "too old" and experience doesn't count and apparently the auditor doesn't think we can read either (also the auditor thought that the internal auditor trainee had high potential, but disregarded the two who were training him that they had no competency - but who's training whom???)...enough ranting.

As a part of the corrective action, we are planning to have three internal auditors take AIAG training course for internal auditors (that comes with an exam at the end and certificate issued after completion).

• But does this external internal auditor training also meet the requirements for the 2nd party auditors? Or for the 2nd party auditors, do you have to take the lead auditor training?
  
  
• We're also planning to have internal auditors take various core tools trainings available from AIAG. These are on-demand eLearning courses which are free of charge to AIAG members, and while they come with certificates of completion, I don't believe exams are included (may be some quiz at the end to test the understanding of the material). In which case, do we have to take their core tools exams? My understanding was that AIAG hosts these core tools exams quarterly for the 3rd party auditors who need to be certified as IATF 3rd party auditors (and if they cannot maintain them periodically, they lose their certification as the 3rd party auditors), and while anyone can take them, the primary purpose of them was for the 3rd party auditors, not for the internal or 2nd party auditors. Or is my understanding incorrect? It would be nice to have all these certificates, but I just thought these core tools exams were a bit an overkill for the internal auditors and 2nd party auditors...not to mention we are only a 10-employee small organization (having to have 3 internal auditors is to prevent conflict of interests and auditors not auditing their work, and split up the internal audits)...

This is only the part of corrective actions (direct containment), but we will also be revising the procedures and incorporate what's missing from existing procedures based on what's required in ISO 19011 and clarify the definitions of qualification and competency (and ISO 9000 Fundamentals and vocabularies for definition of competency...).

The question here is not so much of arguing whether external trainings are needed or not - rather which training would be acceptable training for internal and 2nd party auditors?

You can and should challenge this. Sounds like you have a newer auditor who has something to prove. Our SOP specifically states that auditors need to take a course OR do 5 internal audits under the supervision of a trained auditor. There's also a commitment to complete internal audits on a regular basis to maintain competency. No auditor has ever challenged this and they always ask to see the document. Trust yourself and your company, everyone has bad days and makes mistakes. Auditors are human, stand your ground and appeal within 90 days.

 

[Ashland78]

I don't have it all documented out just yet, but yes, I had them take the self-assessment and send me their results. Helps to know what they each need to work on.

There are so many other beneficial core tool courses as well on the AIAG site,
that are very beneficial for all internal auditor's.

When I worked at a Korean company, one of our corrective actions was to have all engineers within manufacturing take all courses within 6 months. This was a result of a customer audit where manufacturing was very unaware of customer requirements.

 

[Randy]

OR do 5 internal audits under the supervision of a trained auditor.

Trained does not make one competent........How is the "competence" of the supervisory auditor determined and documented?

 

[Ashland78]

Trained does not make one competent........How is the "competence" of the supervisory auditor determined and documented?

Yes, this is where the procedure comes in, if procedure is written correctly then the qualifications of what the minimum requirements are, will be included, explaining what is considered competent.

 

[Quality Manager 15]

Hello,
I am seeking assistance. Our organization is undergoing an IATF audit this week, and we currently do not have documented competencies for Internal Auditors. Could you please advise me on where to begin in addressing this issue? I would greatly appreciate any guidance you can provide. Thank you