Is consultant prohibited in ISO9001 audit?

[Nagano_I]

Hi,

Anyone knows if consultant attending audit is prohibited by any accreditation or certification body rules?

I know that for IATF16949 it states clearly this prohibition.

How about ISO9001 audit?

 

[Coury Ferguson]

Hi,

Anyone knows if consultant attending audit is prohibited by any accreditation or certification body rules?

I know that for IATF16949 it states clearly this prohibition.

How about ISO9001 audit?

It is basically the same for ISO9001:2015. They are there, only as observers, not for answers to the questions from the Assessor.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

It is basically the same for ISO9001:2015. They are there only as observers, not for answers to the questions from the Assessor.

Not really. I don't have the current IATF Rules book, but in a previous version of the document, the IATF EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED consultants from being at the plant, during the time of the CB audit.

In the ISO 9001 world, some CB's had such policy, but that was challenged as a possible restriction of trade and, I believe, no longer can be enforced.

So, in most cases, I believe that common sense says that the consultant obviously can be present during the audit, but must not interfere with the auditors job of assessing if the system is implemented and effective. Certainly the consultant can advise their clients during the audit, but must not answer questions on behalf of the auditee. When I worked as CB auditor, I interfaced with many consultants during the audits. The professional ones know their role and the limitations of their involvement during an audit.

PS. The IATF still requires CB's to have this legally enforceable clause in the contracts with the registrants:

https://www.iatfglobaloversight.org...mpact-for-Client-Condisderation-01Feb2017.pdf

​

 

[AndyN]

It is basically the same for ISO9001:2015. They are there only as observers, not for answers to the questions from the Assessor.

Depends on the role. The label "consultant" is misleading, since it's going to depend on what role they perform, not how they get paid. I am the internal auditor/audit process owner. I should be there at the audit. My contractual relationship is of zero consequence.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Depends on the role. The label "consultant" is misleading, since it's going to depend on what role they perform, not how they get paid. I am the internal auditor/audit process owner. I should be there at the audit. My contractual relationship is of zero consequence.

Exactly. Also, nobody can prohibit an organization to outsource any role to someone who is a consultant, be it as a quality manager, a management representative, a supply chain director, a CEO, or whatever....

 

[Ninja]

The term "contractor" comes to mind... ...if your consultant will tolerate it.

 

[AndyN]

The term "contractor" comes to mind... ...if your consultant will tolerate it.

Why label a person? I've been a consultant for 25 years. How I get paid doesn't affect my work. I've been the Quality Director for a tier 1 supplier and nothing was even mentioned at the upgrade audit. Any auditor who is concerned about labels, needs to wear one: "Close Minded"

 

[Randy]

Why label a person? I've been a consultant for 25 years. How I get paid doesn't affect my work. I've been the Quality Director for a tier 1 supplier and nothing was even mentioned at the upgrade audit. Any auditor who is concerned about labels, needs to wear one: "Close Minded"

Yep, right on. I've got clients (3rd party certification) whose regulatory compliance for environmental and safety are completely outsourced...No problem

 

[AndyN]

It also occurs to me that the ISO "Audit Practices Group" promulgate this vilification of the use of consultants when they publish guidance entitled "How To Deal With Consultants"...

 

[Sidney Vianna]

But, Andy, the paper provides "guidance" on this aspect of the 3rd party auditing world. I think, if you read and analyze it without bias, you don't perceive it as vilification of consultants.

​