ISO 9001 Documents for Submission to the Registrar

[Big Jim]

Indeed, but I think people would be much more careful with their interpretations and opinions if they were transparent with their identities and professional affiliation.

Typical approach when loosing a debate. Change the topic.

 

[Big Jim]

It baffles me that any experienced lead auditor would try to defend the position that you could effectively accomplish that (stage 1) assessment and make a decision to proceed to stage 2 (or not) 4 3 2 1 hours before you start the stage 2 audit.

An advantage I do have here is experience. I have performed off site Stage 1 audits. You evidently have not. From that experience I can say that I have not observed any of the disastrous results you fear. Any of that stuff is simply a non-event.

 

[AndyN]

An advantage I do have here is experience. I have performed off site Stage 1 audits. You evidently have not. From that experience I can say that I have not observed any of the disastrous results you fear. Any of that stuff is simply a non-event.

Interestingly your point of view is directly opposite that of the IATF and now ANAB! It was they, in that order who started the stage 1 followed by stage 2 process (for 9001 etc, not 14k).

Since the market was full of "trainwrecks" because of ineffective, off site audit planning, perhaps Jim, you'd share with us the tools, techniques and process you follow which makes your success fly in the face of everyone else in the marketplace...

I'm sure a lot of people will be very interested, so please feel free to share...

 

[Big Jim]

Interestingly your point of view is directly opposite that of the IATF and now ANAB! It was they, in that order who started the stage 1 followed by stage 2 process (for 9001 etc, not 14k).

Since the market was full of "trainwrecks" because of ineffective, off site audit planning, perhaps Jim, you'd share with us the tools, techniques and process you follow which makes your success fly in the face of everyone else in the marketplace...

I'm sure a lot of people will be very interested, so please feel free to share...

Of more interest is that you are not paying attention. From what Sidney posted, there is room for this under controlled conditions.

As for sharing the tools and techniques, I think I would be stepping outside of my authority to do so.

You and Sidney do not seem to be paying attention to the fact that Stage 2 DOES follow Stage 1. Doing most nearly all of Stage 1 off site does not change that.

Once again, I'm not surprised that some CBs are better organized on how to handle Stage 1 audits when the bulk of it is performed off site. It makes me wonder how organized they are when they do it on site.

Perhaps you can share some of the tools and techniques the CBs you work with use to control on site Stage 1 audits.

 

[Randy]

An advantage I do have here is experience. I have performed off site Stage 1 audits. You evidently have not. From that experience I can say that I have not observed any of the disastrous results you fear. Any of that stuff is simply a non-event.

Well I would be safe to say that I'm experienced (I do this all day, almost every day, all year long), I've done both on and off site Stage 1's and probably as many or more than most others here and probably against more standards...Like 9-14-18 at the same time for the same location for a multisite certification (top that) and here's the deal as I see it...

An off-site, though allowable under present AB/17021 rules/requirements just doesn't give you the warm fuzzy that sitting on location does...Folks throwing electronic documents at ya are doing nothing more that pumping sunshine up your backside with the expectation you'll warm up to them and hoping that before you show up they actually can do what they are telling you.

1 hr between Stage 1 & Stage 2? An AB may buy off on it, but not likely and I know of 1 CB that wouldn't even consider it...following the flow of this Thread we could probably add at least 2 other CB's that wouldn't either..

I find it pretty hard to imagine doing a Stage 1 and never, ever, since the sun started coming up has a Major/Serious nonconformity jumped up during a Stage 1....I've already had 2 this year alone...and guess what? They ain't gonna do no Stage 2 after recess during the 2nd hour. That dog don't hunt...

 

[BradM]

Folks.... passion is good and productive. But let's keep it civil and professional.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Interestingly your point of view is directly opposite that of the IATF and now ANAB!

Andy, we must remember that, before ISO 17021 mandated a two-stage approach to the certification audit, the ISO Auditing Practices Group released (one of their first papers in a long series) a document related specifically to the issue: The need for a 2 stage approach to auditing. In the first paragraph of that document, we read the following

This is why it is beneficial for an organization to be visited prior to its certification audit and for a 1st stage audit to be conducted.

Since that paper was released, ISO 17021 came about and, as you said, they mandated the stage 1 visit, in line with the IATF and IAQG requirements. Actually, both the IATF and the IAQG significantly expanded the requirements of the stage 1 audit because they realize that lack of readiness by the registrants is a significant detractor for an effective certification audit. Without a doubt, registrants who want an effective certification audit should demand the lead auditor to pay them a visit on-site. It even protects the registrant themselves because if the assigned lead auditor is not a good match for the organization, they have a chance to request an auditor re-assignment before the stage 2 audit.

 

[AndyN]

Absolutely, Sidney. Furthermore, when I worked for the first accredited CB, in the UK, it was normal practice to perform what would be recognized today as a stage 1. We didn't call it that and there was never a back to back audit done. There were several situations where had no onsite visit been made, the result wouldn't have been to the customer's satisfaction - and they wouldn't have paid a hefty cancellation fee for putting back the stage 2.

 

[Jen Kirley]

For what it's worth, I haven't done many Stage 1 audits yet but with my people (based on ANAB requirements) the rules are clear:

- Only one Stage 1 visit is allowed. If there's more than one, it's considered consulting.

- Because they aren't registered yet there is no such thing as a Major and Minor. Only "areas of concern" but if it's deemed the client could not pass a registration audit (Stage 2) that audit isn't scheduled and the process starts over.

- A desktop review doesn't work with new registrations, only certificate transfers from another CB. How on Earth could I properly assess readiness for a registration audit from emails??

I hope this helps.

 

[Big Jim]

Well I would be safe to say that I'm experienced (I do this all day, almost every day, all year long), I've done both on and off site Stage 1's and probably as many or more than most others here and probably against more standards...Like 9-14-18 at the same time for the same location for a multisite certification (top that) and here's the deal as I see it...

An off-site, though allowable under present AB/17021 rules/requirements just doesn't give you the warm fuzzy that sitting on location does...Folks throwing electronic documents at ya are doing nothing more that pumping sunshine up your backside with the expectation you'll warm up to them and hoping that before you show up they actually can do what they are telling you.

1 hr between Stage 1 & Stage 2? An AB may buy off on it, but not likely and I know of 1 CB that wouldn't even consider it...following the flow of this Thread we could probably add at least 2 other CB's that wouldn't either..

I find it pretty hard to imagine doing a Stage 1 and never, ever, since the sun started coming up has a Major/Serious nonconformity jumped up during a Stage 1....I've already had 2 this year alone...and guess what? They ain't gonna do no Stage 2 after recess during the 2nd hour. That dog don't hunt...

Thank you for pointing out that off site Stage 1 is permitted under present rules. Others don't seem to believe it.

Jennifer pointed out that Stage 1 nonconforming issues are not classified as major or minor. The auditor does need though to recommend progressing to Stage 2. On that topic I did have one company that was so far off that I could not recommend progressing to Stage 2, and Stage 1 would need to be repeated when they got their act together.

Through all of this, I have never stated that off site Stage 1 is my preference or that I champion the practice. I have only been related my experience with it. It simply is not the train wreck that many here are projecting.

I just amazes me at the close mindedness of many that have posted on this thread. If you would just open your minds you could see just how untenable your suppositions are.