Informational Internal Audits - Wear multiple hats what can and can't I audit (so I'm not auditing my own work)

[Ninja]

I've seen a lot of articles lately on "Why you might need to fire your best employees".
I didn't understand where they were coming from...and disagreed with most of them.
Embedded's situation helps me to understand where such articles might be coming from...but doesn't help me to agree.

Most extremely talented employees I've worked with had matching personalities...and required extra coddling, and induced extra costs.
When looking at whether or not to keep someone, it highlights the need to consider the whole picture.
Does the "I won't share my code" guy contribute more to the company than what he costs? Likely so, even in the big picture. Just perhaps maybe not as much as he thinks due to the additional cost of wasted time...

Consider (as HR, not as QE) itemizing the additional cost and proposing, "If you stop doing these money wasting things {ABC=$.., DEF=$..., XYZ=$...} we will increase your pay by 20% of the savings...or you can continue as you are and miss out on the additional pay...your call."

 

[embedded]

Thanks guys, appreciate your feedback. Lots of food for thought.

 

[Eredhel]

For those curious, I submitted the question for clarification and after several bounces on who to handle it I've submitted a formal request and it's being put before the committee for a formal response. However long that takes.

 

[Big Jim]

For those curious, I submitted the question for clarification and after several bounces on who to handle it I've submitted a formal request and it's being put before the committee for a formal response. However long that takes.

Thank you.

 

[Randy]

Whew now I'm worried, I just spent the week simply asking machine operators what they did, why were they doing it, how did they know what they were doing is correct, what happens if it isn't, and show me how it all works......Drat, Crap, Fiddle and Fudge.

 

[John C. Abnet]

9000 state that it has to be done by someone not responsible for the object being audited?

Good day @Eredhel ;
Allow me to re-iterate what has been stated by the council of some others. ISO 9000 is indeed a helpful and beneficial guide, but no one has ever been (nor ever will be) registered to ISO 9000 . The statements in there are simply not auditable to.

Meet the requirements of ISO 9001 in a way that best/selfishly serves your organization. If you are an organization of 1 and can impartially perform your own internal audits....audit away. If not, outsource it. It really is that simple.

Hope this helps.
Be well.

 

[Eredhel]

I have gotten an official answer and will post it asap. I'm just waiting for the clarification on the terms and definitions part of the interpretation request.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The statements in there are simply not auditable to.

So, are you saying that the definitions provided in ISO 9000 are not mandatory? One can can define their own terms in their systems? So, we don't have to pay attention to the difference between correction, corrective action, preventive action, as an example? Every ISO 9001 registrant can define the terms as they wish? How could we reach standardization then?

Standards such as ISO 14001:2015 contain a number of terms and definitions in Section 3 of the document, which HAVE TO BE ASCRIBED to and paid attention to, during the implementation of the standard.

For commercial and other reasons, the TC 176 SC2 decided to have the terms and definitions, that apply to the TC 176 family of documents, in a separate document and referenced to, as normative, in section 3 of ISO 9001. We cannot simply disregard the definitions when implementing ISO 9001, at the risk of making a mockery of implementation.

 

[Eredhel]

I've submitted a 2nd form for clarification. When it comes back I'll post the results for both.

 

[John C. Abnet]

So, are you saying that the definitions provided in ISO 9000 are not mandatory?

Good day @Sidney Vianna ;
Regardless of context, I'm not sure how a definition can be "mandatory". It is a definition. No dispute there...a definition is, by definition, a definition. Just like a requirement is, by definition, a requirement. Both are accurate for what they are, but they are different.

Be well.