ISO 9001 3rd Party Audit Preparation - Open Issues Aspects

[BradM]

So that I am not misinterpreted, my previous thread was implying false conclusions by customers about there not being a problem, and NOT about how I see it. As Sidney has correctly pointed out, there are serious problems. BUT (an important but) the customer does not think that. They think everything is great because an auditor did not find anything wrong.

This analogy comes to mind: I (O.J. Simpson) was found “not guilty”, so therefore, I must be “innocent”. I passed my audit, so everything is all right with my system.

So let's return. What can be done about it?

Assumptions here (feel free to challenge them):

• Most customers judge a good/bad audit based on how it went, how much trouble it made for them, and how much trouble they will get into.
• Not-good auditors either are reticent about citing clear non-conformances, or (to your other thread) feel they have to cite something (even if it’s pulling out of air).
• There are not-good auditors out there conducting audits as we speak.

If any/all are true, then what is the solution? A ranking system for the agencies?

Will there come a time when the good auditors will only go to work for good agencies?

 

[Helmut Jilling]

...If top management is not taking appropriate action on chronic, delinquent issues, absolutely, as an external auditor, I would write a nonconformity. Have done a number of times.

Yes, absolutely. Me too.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Thanks for the follow-up.

So to pick up a few more auditing tips from you:

I never would have thought about writing the NC against the Internal items. Are you suggesting that you write an NC because no evidence of correcting the internal items? Is there a specific ISO citation for that, or do you objectively observe the internals have not been closed? I guess how would you give your NC some teeth? When would such an item move into a major, or most of the time just a minor?

Say an audit does not go well, and you dump the auditor. Should the new auditor have the similar approach of starting with internal findings first, or do they 'discount' them and start fresh?

Your thoughts. Not to get off track very much; just so I can learn a few more things from this thread; maybe OP will find them interesting also.

I always start my audits with a review of management review, customer issues, audits and corrective action processes. It is how I get the lay of the land, and how the system is being handled.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Thanks for the follow-up.

So to pick up a few more auditing tips from you:

I never would have thought about writing the NC against the Internal items. Are you suggesting that you write an NC because no evidence of correcting the internal items? Is there a specific ISO citation for that, or do you objectively observe the internals have not been closed? I guess how would you give your NC some teeth? When would such an item move into a major, or most of the time just a minor?

Say an audit does not go well, and you dump the auditor. Should the new auditor have the similar approach of starting with internal findings first, or do they 'discount' them and start fresh?

Your thoughts. Not to get off track very much; just so I can learn a few more things from this thread; maybe OP will find them interesting also.

Auditors are trained to assess whether the system is "effective in implementation." Not just surface compliance.

 

[alekra]

Last year I had an experience similar to Angie´s. I started working in a company one month before the Assessment. Only 3 days after (researching with the registar) I discovered that it was a re-certification! And it was a mess also! There was no way to postpone (it was the last week of validity of the certificate). I did a gap analisys, a crytical analysis with top management to expose the situation and... 8 minor NC and 3 improvements. My first feeling was a kind of disappointment (because I did a hard work), but later I realized that what was reported was exactly the crytical points of the processes.

Now, after "blood and tears", there is still some mess in some processes. I am MR without the support I expected to have, but I decided not to give up (one of the reasons was the behaviour of the assessor). Next assessment will be from 23th till 25th. I hope I do not change my mind after that!

Regards

 

[AndyN]

Auditors are trained to assess whether the system is "effective in implementation." Not just surface compliance.

Ah, would that it was true........from the many posts here and other documentation, it appears that the common mantra of auditors is 'not following procedures', nothing about effectiveness

So, is it the teachers, the students' interpretation or what???

Andy

 

[potdar]

Paul, Brad, Sydney and friends

Its good to hear from you express your frustration with the certification process and what it has come to mean in the market place.

But surprisingly, while even a 'rating system' for the certification bodies is discussed, everybody conveniently seems to forget that such a rating system does exist in the form of accreditation bodies.

Or should we say "Because a CB is declared as 'accreditated', therefore it must be capable and upright and ethical and..."?

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Ah, would that it was true........from the many posts here and other documentation, it appears that the common mantra of auditors is 'not following procedures', nothing about effectiveness

So, is it the teachers, the students' interpretation or what???

Andy

A valid sigh of frustration. I'll offer 4 comments.

1. Every field has good practitioners, fair ones and poor ones, so why should auditors be any different.

2. Registrars should not be in such a hurry to make new auditors be full "Lead" Auditors. A much longer incubation period in the co-auditor seat would go a long way.

3. The accreditation bodies spend a lot of time and money beating up legitimate auditors and registrars, trying to find problems. They should take action on the problems already known.

4. Companies should be more willing to switch auditors and even registrars if necessary, when poor ones are found. Why tolerate poor performance. But, make sure your complaints are valid.

 

[potdar]

A valid sigh of frustration. I'll offer 4 comments.

1. Every field has good practitioners, fair ones and poor ones, so why should auditors be any different.

2. Registrars should not be in such a hurry to make new auditors be full "Lead" Auditors. A much longer incubation period in the co-auditor seat would go a long way.

3. The accreditation bodies spend a lot of time and money beating up legitimate auditors and registrars, trying to find problems. They should take action on the problems already known.

But do you really expect such a thing to happen?

4. Companies should be more willing to switch auditors and even registrars if necessary, when poor ones are found. Why tolerate poor performance. But, make sure your complaints are valid.

Unfortunately, the game continues because the Company managements and the 'poor' auditors and registrars are hand in hand. The customers want a paper on the wall and the registrars are in the business of printing it. Many 'good' auditors really end up being 'poor' auditors in the whole grind.

Maybe, somebody like Randy can open up his heart for once on how difficult it is to be 'RANDY'.:

 

[Helmut Jilling]

But do you really expect such a thing to happen?



Unfortunately, the game continues because the Company managements and the 'poor' auditors and registrars are hand in hand. The customers want a paper on the wall and the registrars are in the business of printing it. Many 'good' auditors really end up being 'poor' auditors in the whole grind.

Maybe, somebody like Randy can open up his heart for once on how difficult it is to be 'RANDY'.:

There is an old story of 4 blind men touching an elephant, to try to see what it might look like. One held the trunk and said, "It bends and is very flexible, and moves all around." Another held a leg and said, "No, it is like the trunk of a tree. Powerful and unmoveable." Another held the tail... well, you get the idea...

The point is, we can't say or act like all auditors this, or all companies that. There are good ones and bad ones. Some of the posters on Elsmar are good, and some are bad. We can't paint everything with a broad brush. Those that want junk will find it. Those that want good, can find it as well.

There are plenty of good auditors, registrars, companies, Quality Managers that prowl this board. If you are not happy with what you have, then make whatever changes are needed or possible. That is our jobs. We are the Change Agents for our companies and clients.

If it were easy, then everyone would be doing it! But, it is worth pursuing.