ISO 9001 Documents for Submission to the Registrar

[Big Jim]

DO they understand the purpose of the stage 1 audit, in that case?

They certainly do.

The CB isn't reviewing the documents, just checking to see if they have them.

Can you cite the clause of 17021 that you think is being violated?

 

[AndyN]

They certainly do.

The CB isn't reviewing the documents, just checking to see if they have them.

Can you cite the clause of 17021 that you think is being violated?

Now Jim, why would you ask that? The point of doing the stage 1 is to ensure readiness. As we know from the common CB process before 17021 came along (an the IATF took the bull by the horns) just looking at documents tells you nothing of any substance.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Now Jim, why would you ask that? The point of doing the stage 1 is to ensure readiness. As we know from the common CB process before 17021 came along (an the IATF took the bull by the horns) just looking at documents tells you nothing of any substance.

An example of the audit scope for a CB stage-1 TS16949 audit is attached. Poorly worded, which comes as no surprise, but it shows in general what purpose the stage-1 audit is supposed to serve.

 

[somashekar]

Now Jim, why would you ask that? The point of doing the stage 1 is to ensure readiness. As we know from the common CB process before 17021 came along (an the IATF took the bull by the horns) just looking at documents tells you nothing of any substance.

Readiness, yes.
A typical quotation cites the audit mandays for stage 1 and stage 2. None of these are offsite. Any auditor travel costs applies to both stage 1 and stage 2. This can be a desktop review at site + site tour. (Avoids awkward surprises in stage 2)
Anything else is shortcut.

 

[Big Jim]

Now Jim, why would you ask that? The point of doing the stage 1 is to ensure readiness. As we know from the common CB process before 17021 came along (an the IATF took the bull by the horns) just looking at documents tells you nothing of any substance.

So I guess that you can't cite what you think has been violated. Is that right?

Do you think that the accreditation bodies would permit something you think is so wrong? After all, the accreditation bodies do come in and audit the certification bodies from time to time and look over audits performed and their system of auditing.

Until you can cite the clause that has been violated you are just voicing an opinion.

Now back to what I said, the certification body I mostly work with does require clients to submit documentation prior to the stage one, not to audit the documents, simply to confirm that they exist. This saves a great deal of grief. Before 17021, when working under Guide 62, there was more than one occassion that I showed up for a registration audit and the auditee was nowhere near ready.

Maybe you prefer to work that way. I don't.

 

[AndyN]

Jim: It's really not a case of "violation" (what an ugly word), it's about what is effective.

 

[Big Jim]

Jim: It's really not a case of "violation" (what an ugly word), it's about what is effective.

Very true, and it appears to be very effective to confirm the documents exist before committing an auditor. Perhaps you have different criteria for effectiveness.

I posted when explaining why a certification body may want to have the documents sent ahead. I explained that is how some do it. I'm not in a position to debate that it is the only way to do it, but I will say from the perspective of an auditor that works within that system that it works.

If other certification bodies have found a different way to effectivly handle it and the accreditation bodies have had no issues with it, then I don't either. It is simply an alternative that works for them.

 

[somashekar]

Now back to what I said, the certification body I mostly work with does require clients to submit documentation prior to the stage one, not to audit the documents, simply to confirm that they exist.

Jim, does this still say that the stage 1 is an audit at site, to evaluate readiness ?

 

[Big Jim]

Jim, does this still say that the stage 1 is an audit at site, to evaluate readiness ?

As Randy aluded to, there are some certification bodies that sometimes perform part of the Stage 1 off site. Stage 1 cannot be completed until an auditor is on site to confirm that the activties there match the documents including the scope statement. Performing part of the Stage 1 off site saves the auditee the expense of transporting an auditor on site, simply to confirm that the documentation matches the site. That can be confirmed prior to Stage 2 after arriving on site for Stage 2 before starting Stage 2. I have done Stage 1 audits both off site and on site. Off site Stage 1 audits are often only a half day.

However, that has no bearing on a CB confirming that the documents exist before committing to a Stage 1 audit. It is a seperate issue.

 

[somashekar]

As Randy aluded to, there are some certification bodies that sometimes perform part of the Stage 1 off site. Stage 1 cannot be completed until an auditor is on site to confirm that the activties there match the documents including the scope statement. Performing part of the Stage 1 off site saves the auditee the expense of transporting an auditor on site, simply to confirm that the documentation matches the site. That can be confirmed prior to Stage 2 after arriving on site for Stage 2 before starting Stage 2. I have done Stage 1 audits both off site and on site. Off site Stage 1 audits are often only a half day.

However, that has no bearing on a CB confirming that the documents exist before committing to a Stage 1 audit. It is a seperate issue.

Document review offsite prior to stage 1 - Understand
stage 1 offsite - I do not understand still
You say this:

Stage 1 cannot be completed until an auditor is on site to confirm that the activties there match the documents including the scope statement.

and this:

I have done Stage 1 audits both off site and on site

What exactly is this:

That can be confirmed prior to Stage 2 after arriving on site for Stage 2 before starting Stage 2.

??
CB's before were doing a Prep audit (onsite) to check readiness at a cost before Cert audit (onsite). This was optional for customers.
Customers avoided Prep audit for saving money and Cert audit threw up surprises, awkward surprises.
The Cert audit has been then split to Stage 1 + Stage 2. (both onsite)
So prior to stage 1, CB asking for documents and customer providing the same is CB and company convenience, and a small part of the stage 1. Not the stage 1 itself.

I have done Stage 1 audits both off site and on site. Off site Stage 1 audits are often only a half day.

Offsite How... ? By document review and then back and forth with customer.
What if docs say validation is excluded and they have processes requiring validation, which the other docs do not expose?
What if they say the headcount is 15 and the site has 50. People on work effecting quality are contract labor and the company say they do not count them. How is the readiness assessed offsite ?
There are many more readiness issues when I mention awkward surprises ~~~