Re: Internal Auditor lack of Competence.
Richard,
Audit is classified as an appraisal activity in quality costing just like inspection which is why I referred you to the British Standard (I am sorry for not knowing the Australian equivalent).
Agreed, audit is productive whereas sorting good products from bad is not.
The PDCA improvement cycle does not need audit. Much of what the internal auditor does is specified by the process monitoring requirement (clause 8.2.3). Process monitoring should be more frequent and happens a long time before internal audit. Occasionally the Management Rep can verify conformity of the system with the system standard to complete the 8.2.2 requirement.
Since you ask, my audit reports answer the question posed by each audit's objective. If the audit client wants advice then I document this in the audit objective so the auditee is fully aware. Before providing advice, and if I have the time, I investigate why the system did not make the improvement obvious to the auditee before the audit. Yes, my questions and my report (may be even a CAR) invoke action to strengthen the system. It also stops the auditees from relying on the auditors to rescue their system.
Do you see "with advice" documented in the audit objectives where the corresponding audit reports are full of OFI's (some instead of nonconformity reports!)?
Perhaps if the internal auditors documented "with advice" in the audit objectives of their audit plans they know their CB would pull their certification for a lack of impartiality, objectivity and independence (per the ISO 9000 definition of audit - a normative standard to ISO 9001).
Also if the CBs documented "with advice" in the audit objectives of their audit plans they know their accreditation agency would pull their accreditation.
Strictly speaking advising is not auditing (because of the unknown audit criteria - see below) and the audit clients have a right to get what they have paid for.
Advice comes from unknown audit criteria. Auditees need to know the audit criteria and these days auditors document the audit criteria in the audit plan delivered to the auditee before the audit.
I am sure you will agree that we must not go back to the old-days when auditors would wander around the auditee's facility offering their opinions (based on unknown audit criteria) rather like the seagulls from head office?
John
We have to agree to disagree there.
Internal Audit especially; is not Inspection; not even in its widest term of "Appraisal".
(Since you raised the subject :- Not that time served has any descriptive value; but I too have been Auditing since 79, am a licensed training provider to the German Society for Quality (and hence the European Organization for Quality) as well as for a number of other National & Tertiary organizations.) but as I said experience is overrated compared to current competence!
Whilst training, we make absolute and specific emphasis that Auditing is NOT Inspection as that approach is totally non-productive. I know of no Training (including IRCA and RAB) or other material that infers that it is.
The system of course MUST NOT depend on EXTERNAL Auditors, Thank God.
.
To use your model however, any potential weakness (not non-conformance) in the QMS must result from an inefficiency in the QMS and therefore must result in a non-conformance.
How can this be? when Internal Auditing is part of that very QMS and by inference is part of the improvement (prevention) Process?
Based on your comments, I assume you "never" make any comment other than comply or not comply. I know of not a single reputable CB who promotes that approach from its Auditors.
but am always willing to learn from my peers.
Internal Audit especially; is not Inspection; not even in its widest term of "Appraisal".(Since you raised the subject :- Not that time served has any descriptive value; but I too have been Auditing since 79, am a licensed training provider to the German Society for Quality (and hence the European Organization for Quality) as well as for a number of other National & Tertiary organizations.) but as I said experience is overrated compared to current competence!
Whilst training, we make absolute and specific emphasis that Auditing is NOT Inspection as that approach is totally non-productive. I know of no Training (including IRCA and RAB) or other material that infers that it is.
The system of course MUST NOT depend on EXTERNAL Auditors, Thank God.
. To use your model however, any potential weakness (not non-conformance) in the QMS must result from an inefficiency in the QMS and therefore must result in a non-conformance.
How can this be? when Internal Auditing is part of that very QMS and by inference is part of the improvement (prevention) Process?
Based on your comments, I assume you "never" make any comment other than comply or not comply. I know of not a single reputable CB who promotes that approach from its Auditors.
but am always willing to learn from my peers.
Audit is classified as an appraisal activity in quality costing just like inspection which is why I referred you to the British Standard (I am sorry for not knowing the Australian equivalent).
Agreed, audit is productive whereas sorting good products from bad is not.
The PDCA improvement cycle does not need audit. Much of what the internal auditor does is specified by the process monitoring requirement (clause 8.2.3). Process monitoring should be more frequent and happens a long time before internal audit. Occasionally the Management Rep can verify conformity of the system with the system standard to complete the 8.2.2 requirement.
Since you ask, my audit reports answer the question posed by each audit's objective. If the audit client wants advice then I document this in the audit objective so the auditee is fully aware. Before providing advice, and if I have the time, I investigate why the system did not make the improvement obvious to the auditee before the audit. Yes, my questions and my report (may be even a CAR) invoke action to strengthen the system. It also stops the auditees from relying on the auditors to rescue their system.
Do you see "with advice" documented in the audit objectives where the corresponding audit reports are full of OFI's (some instead of nonconformity reports!)?
Perhaps if the internal auditors documented "with advice" in the audit objectives of their audit plans they know their CB would pull their certification for a lack of impartiality, objectivity and independence (per the ISO 9000 definition of audit - a normative standard to ISO 9001).
Also if the CBs documented "with advice" in the audit objectives of their audit plans they know their accreditation agency would pull their accreditation.
Strictly speaking advising is not auditing (because of the unknown audit criteria - see below) and the audit clients have a right to get what they have paid for.
Advice comes from unknown audit criteria. Auditees need to know the audit criteria and these days auditors document the audit criteria in the audit plan delivered to the auditee before the audit.
I am sure you will agree that we must not go back to the old-days when auditors would wander around the auditee's facility offering their opinions (based on unknown audit criteria) rather like the seagulls from head office?
John