Randy
Super Moderator
Sometimes it is, I've seen it many times.
Interested Parties
- Thread starter Gil R.
- Start date
I received a minor at my last audit on this subject, and I'd appreciate some input. The objective evidence was ' Interested parties have been identified in the Interested Parties Overview Document, however there are no needs and expectations identified ', references being 4.2.a, & 4.4.2.
What he was after was lists of needs and expectations of the interested parties- which I disagreed this was necessary.
The auditor refused to discuss it, response being if I disagree put in a complaint. I was in an awkward position as UKAS were onsite reviewing him, I won't be agreeing to that again.
What he was after was lists of needs and expectations of the interested parties- which I disagreed this was necessary.
The auditor refused to discuss it, response being if I disagree put in a complaint. I was in an awkward position as UKAS were onsite reviewing him, I won't be agreeing to that again.
If you don’t allow an AB on-site to perform a witnessed audit of the CB, without a proper justification, your certification is revoked.
Ah, the lazy auditor standard strikes again. You are required to determine the requirements of your interested parties. So the interviewee should be able to state those requirements — I.e., customers require parts to spec and shipped on time. No requirement to document them as you supposedly get to make that decision. I’ll bet he didn’t even ask the question. Just looked at the list and wrote his NC. Now you get to go thru a bunch of BS to resolve. What fun.
Randy
Super Moderator
They weren't reviewing him, they were auditing the delivery process in the meeting of their rules and those of the CB, and as Sidney said, not letting an AB Witness Auditor onsite is a "Bozo No-No" (there are exceptions, but they are few and far between and I've experienced them)
I would appeal this to your certification body. He stated that although you had a document that listed your interested parties, that document did not include detailing their needs and expectations.
There is no requirement to document who your interested parties are and there most certainly no requirement to list their needs and expectations.
There is a requirement that you have determined them so the auditor is limited to asking you what they are to which you can respond verbally.
There is a likely chance that the witness auditor has already written up the auditor for over-reaching, if not, he should have.
There is no requirement to document who your interested parties are and there most certainly no requirement to list their needs and expectations.
There is a requirement that you have determined them so the auditor is limited to asking you what they are to which you can respond verbally.
There is a likely chance that the witness auditor has already written up the auditor for over-reaching, if not, he should have.
While I agree with you 100%, my experience is this would be an exercise in futility. It will just go from the lazy auditor standard to the lazy appeal standard. They'll create a bogus requirement to "document" under the theory if it isn't documented it wasn't done. Don't ask how I know.
While I agree with you 100%, my experience is this would be an exercise in futility. It will just go from the lazy auditor standard to the lazy appeal standard. They'll create a bogus requirement to "document" under the theory if it isn't documented it wasn't done. Don't ask how I know.
If no one stands up to this blackmail it will continue. What's really bad is that often when a company just rolls with the punches and doesn't stand up to this coercion they will find it difficult to come up with an acceptable response and end up bouncing back and forth trying to provide a response that is acceptable to the certification body. In the end it is often better to stand up to them than to try to placate them.
I get that, but it’s fantasy land. I have never had a successful appeal. And unfortunately in many instances the appeal response was worse than the actual finding. So far my subsequent complaints have gone unanswered. I’m a small few thousand dollar client. They don’t give a crap about me. I’ll be changing registrars. But the whole thing is one giant scam in my opinion. The standard is too vague and subject to too much interpretation with zero consistency between auditors. I see no attempts to address the fundamental problems in the future.
In the OPs case the most efficient path is to have some pretty charts, graphs and a matrix that he can pull out, show the auditor, check the box and move on. Then file them until the next audit.
Randy
Super Moderator
Good luck.
And y'all are right for the most part. I've done about half a dozen or so certificate transfers in the last few months and looking at the past reports that have to be supplied and some of the god awful NC's that are written that I've had to carry over just about drives me crazy.
Similar threads
