Is consultant prohibited in ISO9001 audit?

[AndyN]

if you read and analyze it without bias

No bias, Sidney. I have read and understood it and it casts consultants in one role only, witnessed by this text:
"It should be made clear by the audit team leader during the opening meeting that the role of the consultant is similar to that of an observer and that the consultant should not try to influence or interfere in the audit process or in the outcome of the audit."

I am particularly sensitive, yes, because too many times CB auditors have thrown the work of the consultant under the bus because they don't possess the basic characteristics laid out in ISO 19011.

 

[Ninja]

Why label a person?

...apparently the labels have already been put in play...as evidenced by:

"...and that the consultant should not try to influence or interfere in the audit process or in the outcome of the audit."

Above being the cause
Below being a potential (easiest, though not the best) result

The term "contractor" comes to mind..

The best solution is for personnel of the company itself to grow into the roles and no longer need the consultant for audits.

Not trying to be disagreeable here...but to my eyes, the OP would prefer to have experienced help in the audit else he/she wouldn't have asked the question.
Change of title is one immediate term patch until the desire for "help" during the audit is no longer needed.

 

[AndyN]

The best solution is for personnel of the company itself to grow into the roles and no longer need the consultant for audits.

I'm not sure this comment and the role of the consultant are mutually exclusive. Many organizations have people who do certain jobs, even as employees. No-one else does that job. The standard doesn't require a succession plan to ensure a back-up is available. If that applies to someone who comes in periodically to do internal audits, and happens to carry a business card from another company (while possessing the competencies to be an internal auditor) why is this, somehow, different? I understand that the number of days someone is present might influence things like being, for example, a "resident alien" in another country, but why have payment arrangements and/or time spent doing a job of any consequence to running an effective QMS?

 

[Ninja]

I'm not sure this comment and the role of the consultant are mutually exclusive.

Fair enough, and agreed. But if I can't use the consultant for audits...where does that leave us?
Please understand that I am responding only to the desire to have a non-employee present at the audit, and that a "consultant" may not be actively engaged in said audit under certain standards.
I can think of a few reasons why that 'exclusion requirement' might be a good thing...and a few issues it can cause, especially in but not limited to a smaller company.

To a degree, reaching for IATF tends to suggest a minimum 25 person company (huge generalization there), and even then, the company may choose to outsource a number of facets of the QMS (internal audits, payroll, calibration all come immediately to mind).
For quite a long time, we hired a consultant to perform our internal audits...a real curmudgeon, never happy, always critical...he was perfect for the role.
If under the standard in question, a consultant cannot materially participate in an external audit...then SOMEBODY has to do it, and they can't have the title "consultant"...right?

I get the feeling that you're questioning why the requirement (restriction) exists, and I'm suggesting a patch to get by since it does ?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I am particularly sensitive, yes, because too many times CB auditors have thrown the work of the consultant under the bus because the don't possess the basic characteristics laid out in ISO 19011.

I don't dispute that, but the opposite is also true and the genesis of the issue at hand. Some consultants, when confronted with evidence during a CB audit that their advice was fundamentally flawed, engaged in highly confrontational behavior towards the audit team. Registrants who like the "certificate in a can" approach, where they take no ownership for the system are also part of the problem.

The whole relationship between registrants, consultants and CB's has become dysfunctional at times. Proof of that is the below ANAB HeadsUp 240, from 2012, where it became clear that some consulting organizations turned themselves into "brokers of certification services", signing certification contracts on behalf of the registrants. You and I know that threats to CB impartiality and unethical practices abound in this sector and the AB's are either "blissfully" oblivious or fail to perform proper assessments to uncover them.

​

 

[Sidney Vianna]

the best solution is for personnel of the company itself to grow into the roles and no longer need the consultant for audits.

I think the best approach is for each organization to devise solutions that maximize business benefits and think out of the box when making "make/buy" (i.e, in-house vs. outsourced) decisions.

Randy mentioned that many organizations outsource the regulatory compliance assessment component of Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety. With an ever more complex regulatory context in the developed world, it is almost impossible for a small and medium size enterprise to find someone who can be kept up to date on the growing universe of regulations. Outsourcing that component of the system is a smart move, for organizations that can afford it.

Internal system auditing is also a prime area where, the outsourcing to a highly knowledgeable, competent and skillful person, would bring business benefits that you can rarely accomplish with internal resources. The lack of true and perceived value from most internal audit programs is evidence of that.

 

[AndyN]

Some consultants, when confronted with evidence during a CB audit that their advice was fundamentally flawed, engaged in highly confrontational behavior towards the audit team.

I'd venture to suggest that we've moved on since those days and the eventual arrival of this HU. Of course, we've seen a gradual flow down of QMS requirements such that, as your previous post suggests, the smaller and smaller businesses are best placed to engage some expertise, in place of fruitlessly trying to master certain parts of ISO 9001 etc. There's a lot of contributory factors to where we are now, so maybe it's time the APG remove that specific guidance (especially since many more CB auditors are also consultants) and, instead focus on auditors performing effective audits...

 

[Yukon]

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?

I am a CB auditor. We do not have to even allow a consultant in the same room/area where the audit is taking place nor can they answer questions on behalf of the auditee.

 

[Al Rosen]

I am a CB auditor. We do not have to even allow a consultant in the same room/area where the audit is taking place nor can they answer questions on behalf of the auditee.

Please show me the rule that says you can prohibit the consultant from attending.

 

[AndyN]

That's like. When the auditor is also a consultant...

en.wikipedia.org
Schrödinger's cat