ISO 9001:2008 Requirement to Audit 'All Shifts'

[Sidney Vianna]

If an auditee can demonstrate that activities and results (especially) on off-shifts aren't substantively different from the first shift, CBs may choose not to audit the off-shifts and must document the rationale for the decision.

That is correct. However, in the real World, the percentage of organizations that keep track of reliable "quality performance" data by shift is minuscule, in my experience.

As a side note, in the ICOP Aerospace scheme, with the release, later this year of the AS9104/1 standard, CB audit of all shifts will also become mandatory in certain conditions. § 8.2.2.e) of AS9104/1 states

Auditing of the entire AQMS standard on all shifts is required for initial and recertification audits. For surveillance audits, the planning shall include coverage of multiple shifts when the audit plan activities occur across multiple shifts.

 

[Jim Wynne]

That is correct. However, in the real World, the percentage of organizations that keep track of reliable "quality performance" data by shift is minuscule, in my experience.

My experience is different. I've worked for a number of different companies--in different industries--with multiple shifts and I can't recall any that didn't monitor (and keep data for) off-shift activities and performance. I don't think that auditing of off-shifts (especially internal auditing) is a bad thing, or always unnecessary. What I said was that if a CB is making an arbitrary, across-the-board, unilateral decision to audit off-shifts, it's wrong.

BTW, I once did a second-party audit of a supplier and discovered on one of its work orders on the shop floor a big note that said: DO NOT RUN ON SECOND SHIFT!!! (It was a two-shift operation.) Now there's a red flag for you.

 

[Stijloor]

My experience is different. I've worked for a number of different companies--in different industries--with multiple shifts and I can't recall any that didn't monitor (and keep data for) off-shift activities and performance. I don't think that auditing of off-shifts (especially internal auditing) is a bad thing, or always unnecessary. What I said was that if a CB is making an arbitrary, across-the-board, unilateral decision to audit off-shifts, it's wrong.

BTW, I once did a second-party audit of a supplier and discovered on one of its work orders on the shop floor a big note that said: DO NOT RUN ON SECOND SHIFT!!! (It was a two-shift operation.) Now there's a red flag for you.

The way I understand it is that the CB has to abide by the rules set forth by the IAF through which the CB is accredited. So, it is not at the CB's discretion but the accreditation organization.

Stijloor.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

So, it is not at the CB's discretion but the accreditation organization.

As Howard quoted

Where product or service realization processes operate on a shift basis, the extent of auditing of each shift by the CAB depends on the processes done on each shift, and the level of control of each shift that is demonstrated by the client. The justification for not auditing each shift shall be documented.

CAB is an acronym for CB's, not AB's. So, the CB's do have a decision to make about auditing multiple shifts, in the absence of a mandate, such as in the IATF and IAQG Schemes.

 

[John Martinez]

Hi, guys:
Certification Bodies have to comply with ISO 17021 and the IAF MD's. Currently, if the CB's have to jsutify if all shifts are not audited.

For the US, ANAB has dictated what they will and will NOT accept as reasons. One of the reasons is if ALL shfits, does the SAME process or work and there is EVIDENCE that ALL SHIFTS are showing the same metrics, then that is acceptable. If a shift is showing higher metrics than others, then it has to be audited.

The other condition is say a chemical plant that TRULY has a rotating shift where internal audits will cover all shfits eventually.

This has NOTHING to do with ISO 9001: It has EVERYTHING to do with your registrar's Certification Body.

So, it is usless to contact another registrar unless you want an unacredited certificate, which, in my opinion, is worthless as "self certified" or "compliant".. a subject for another psot.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

The question being, "Where's the 'shall.'" What the "shall" actually says wrt auditing of off-shifts is "It depends." If an auditee can demonstrate that activities and results (especially) on off-shifts aren't substantively different from the first shift, CBs may choose not to audit the off-shifts and must document the rationale for the decision. I think that a CB's unconditional decision to audit off-shifts is wrong in the absence of evidence that it's necessary.

CB's "may" choose to try to justify why shifts are not audited. As an auditor, I would suggest that ANAB does look kindly to too many exceptions to new rules. The intent is clear, and the trend is toward more shift auditing, as TS has required all along. There are a few very small companies where I have taken the exception, but in very narrow, limited cases. It is not worth the risk and bother. We will be auditing all shifts most of the time, if not all the time.

 

[sharpsl]

John, I appreciate your detailed explanation!! Thanks

 

[Randy]

Here's a unique thought....Review your contract.

Additionally the auditor may be acting upon his own organization requirements and its understanding of the application of ISO 17021 requirements.

What's the big deal anyway? Is there something not happening on the other shifts the auditor shouldn't see? If you "maintain" your system effectively all aspects of it should be able to demonstrate conformance at any time, not just at "Audit" time or at your convienence.

The audit has to be a representative sample of the whole....just looking at the day shift doesn't meet that.

 

[John Martinez]

Here's a unique thought....Review your contract.

Additionally the auditor may be acting upon his own organization requirements and its understanding of the application of ISO 17021 requirements.

What's the big deal anyway? Is there something not happening on the other shifts the auditor shouldn't see? If you "maintain" your system effectively all aspects of it should be able to demonstrate conformance at any time, not just at "Audit" time or at your convienence.

The audit has to be a representative sample of the whole....just looking at the day shift doesn't meet that.

While ISO 9001 does not require auditing all shifts, I always encouraged my clients to do so. Follow this reasoning:
Where do you put new employees --- third shift.
Where are your most inexperienced people --- third shift.
Where do you find most of your off quality or problems --- third shift.

Then why are you not auditing all shifts??

Try writing a requirement agaist a best practice regarding ISO 9001 and watch the client, and rightfully so, call the auditor on an non existing and clear requirement.

Now there is a requirement imposed by the IAF, pushed down to the AB's and then the CB's and subsequently the audtiee.

You know what rolls down hill, don't you?​

Then there is IAF (International Accreditaion Forum of which ANAB is a member) MD 5 Section 3.5

"Where product or service realization processes operate on a shift basis, the extent of auditing of each shift
by the CAB depends on the processes done on each shift, and the level of control of each shift that
is demonstrated by the client. The justification for not auditing each shift shall be documented."​

If your CB issues an accredited certificate by an AB that is a member of the IAF, then this DOES APPLY. Again, ANAB HAS stated what they will and will not accept. ​

Check with your Registrar (CB - Certification Body). If anyone doubts my response, look at the IAF website and look for the MD's. It's not a matter of the auditor interpretating the CB's requirement. It is the CB pushing down the actual requirement from above.​

​

​

​

​