Yes, is it not?
It would seem to be "common sense", but then again the 8% mentioned by Jane suggests maybe not.
One of the things about 'common sense' is that it really isn't as 'common' as one thinks it should be. Took me a long time to realise this.
Almost all of ISO 9001 (for example) is what I think is just 'common business sense'. But I'm still flabbergasted at what some businesses do, get away with, and in fact are extremely profitable in spite of doing, as they are often running themselves on ... nothing much, perhaps boss' gut feel, instinct, having some really good people, even just sheer good luck.
All of our opinions about the appropriateness of the actions of an auditor quickly become subjective. Is it possible, or even desirable, to come up with a written set of auditing standards that go beyond the "code of ethics"?
I agree much of it it
is subjective. Maybe it's the non-engineer in me, my experience of being a service provider in many role, and my experience with service-based companies, but this doesn't bother me. In fact I see it as inevitable when you are talking about a
service performed by
human beings . I had the pleasure of watching one (a competent auditor that is) at work earlier this week on a 2-day certification for my client. I always enjoy watching auditors from this firm (Lloyds Register) at work, and this was no exception.
Nothing, but nothing, can substitute for a skilled, experienced auditor. And, I don't think anything can substitute for having auditors mentored & assessed by competent auditors. Although that may sit uneasily with the engineers among us
Instead of trying to stipulate a 'one size fits all', I'd prefer a model something akin to specifying that the certifier must define, & implement, & monitor against a set of service delivery standards for its auditors to follow (values, a code, whatever you want to call them). And make them demonstrate that they do this.
Or, do I need to take my thinking cap off?
No, Craig. Please, never.