ISO 19011 revision - Your thoughts

[Paul Simpson]

Hi all. Freshly arrived in Cairo for the TC 207 meeting. There is a joint working group on ISO 19011 revision - as ever any thoughts gratefully received.

 

[AndyN]

Re: ISO 19011 revision

Hi all. Freshly arrived in Cairo for the TC 207 meeting. There is a joint working group on ISO 19011 revision - as ever any thoughts gratefully received.

Tough gig, Paul!

There should be a much bigger differentiation of audit process between the 'formality' of external audits and that of internal audits. Everything is painted with the same brush, yet it's clear to me that because we have a 'one size fits all' and most training tends to emulate the external process (on which the earliest lead auditor courses were based) there needs to be a fundamental shift towards internal auditors behaving more like 6 Sigma Green Belts, than CB auditors!

Indeed, if I had my way, the whole internal audit process would be based more on the SS model, but I know that's pushing the envelope too much!

There should also be a definition of a clear role of an 'audit manager' and what should be considered in scheduling internal audits. Clearly, people have little idea what 'status and importance' mean in any practical sense and, as a result 'get away with' scheduling one or two a year to emulate the CB's audits - crazy......

Furthermore, (if I may) internal auditors need to be versed not just in 'ISO' - as they often are, but modern CI techniques like Lean and SS. Too many are oblivious of issues that if they had the 'eyes' to see, they'd have recorded 'ineffectiveness' NC's rather than 'following procedures' reports!.

One last thing - align the whole 'independence' thing. 19011 says one thing, ISO 9001 says something else! Let's have some consistency guys!

Any more?

Thanks and good luck with the committee!

 

[Big Jim]

Re: ISO 19011 revision - Cairo TC 207 meeting - Your thoughts - June 2009

I also agree that there should be better differentiation between internal and external audits, but would like to see it even more along the line of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd party lines. There should be better guidance for not just internal audits, but for supplier audits as well.

I'm not sure there should be stress toward other quality concepts. I just don't think they always fit. That should be part of understanding the organization being audited and that should be according to managements emphasis.

I also agree that the "auditor does not audit their own work" should be better explained and coordinated with ISO 9001.

 

[Stijloor]

Re: ISO 19011 revision - Cairo TC 207 meeting - Your thoughts - June 2009

Hi all. Freshly arrived in Cairo for the TC 207 meeting. There is a joint working group on ISO 19011 revision - as ever any thoughts gratefully received.

The standard should address:

1. Certification audits. (for obtaining system certification to some Standard)
2. Process audits. (for assessing the effectiveness of processes within a quality system)
3. Continual improvement audits. (audits to verify that the process is indeed improving based on performance data)

There should be a clear distinction (as AndyN already alluded to) between registration (3rd party) audits and internal (1st party) audits.

I agree with AndyN that most internal audits copy/emulate the external audit approach including opening and closing meetings and ongoing arguments about major and minor nonconformities!!!

Stijloor.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: ISO 19011 revision - Cairo TC 207 meeting - Your thoughts - June 2009

There should be a clear distinction (as AndyN already alluded to) between registration (3rd party) audits and internal (1st party) audits.

I agree with AndyN that most internal audits copy/emulate the external audit approach including opening and closing meetings and ongoing arguments about major and minor nonconformities!!

I agree as well. Clearly, the goals and constraints of 1st, 2nd and 3rd party audits are different.

Maybe the ISO TC should acknowledge the wisdom of the US delegation, by developing a 19011 version that addresses the 3 forms of auditing, separately. What do you think about QE19011S-2004? (ISO 19011)

I also think that the competence requirements for auditors should be beefed up. Auditors should be required to understand how a management system subset is critical as a business support function. The body of knowledge for auditors should require an understanding of business results and how quality/environmental/health & safety/information security/etc... affects it's achievement.

 

[Stijloor]

Re: ISO 19011 revision - Cairo TC 207 meeting - Your thoughts - June 2009

Friends,

I always believed that ANSI/ISO/ASQ QE19011S-2004 (the US version of ISO 19011) is a superior document. It addresses the needs of the various audit stakeholders. Audit training and auditing practices must be drastically improved to (re)gain the trust in the audit process. I hope that TC 207 will address these needs.

Paul, we're counting on you! See the pyramids later.

Stijloor.

 

[Randy]

Re: ISO 19011 revision - Cairo TC 207 meeting - Your thoughts - June 2009

See if you can get them to agree to doing real work instead of going on a global tour and producing zilch like TC176 did

 

[Stijloor]

Re: ISO 19011 revision - Cairo TC 207 meeting - Your thoughts - June 2009

See if you can get them to agree to doing real work instead of going on a global tour and producing zilch like TC176 did

Randy, you would make an excellent contributing member!

Stijloor.

 

[Polly Pure Bread]

Re: ISO 19011 revision - Cairo TC 207 meeting - Your thoughts - June 2009

Hope for the best, expect the worst

 

[howste]

Re: ISO 19011 revision - Cairo TC 207 meeting - Your thoughts - June 2009

I'd like to see more emphasis on management direction in internal audits. In most systems I see top management reviewing the results of audits, but I don't see too many systems where top management plays an active role in providing direction for the audit program or individual audits. I see way too many internal audits where the audit manager or individual auditors are the only ones deciding what should be emphasized and followed-up on in audits.