Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo including content not in the forum - Search results with No ads.

ISO 9001 Internal Audit Compliance Scoring System

#21
Crusader,

I wanted to evaluate only one section of QMS which is Measurement, Analysis and Improvement. Is it possible? If yes, can you help me how my table and formulas would be? I have 6 divisions in my company.
Also, can you tel me why you use -30, -20, -10 specifically?

Thanks.
I can try to help. I used those numbers at random. You can use any metric you choose.
 
#22
Crusader,

I wanted to evaluate only one section of QMS which is Measurement, Analysis and Improvement. Is it possible? If yes, can you help me how my table and formulas would be? I have 6 divisions in my company.
Also, can you tel me why you use -30, -20, -10 specifically?

Thanks.
Sorry, I forgot about this thread....I thought you were going to provide more info but I can set something up without any more info.....give me some time today and I will try to post a file later that you should be able to modify and use.
 
S

Simon123456

#23
Hi

Excellent spreadsheet. I've long been tweaking a number of files I use to do just this. My only issue has been getting everything to tie in. We have ISO9001 and ISO17025 so they are not totally in alignment but they are getting there.

If I could ask an obvious question with regards the scores used. Maybe get an idea or fuller description of each score level. You have mentioned in your sheet that you can score more than once so I am assuming it could be say a score in 1 and 6?

1 - Fully Documented & Implemented
2 - Not Documented & Not Implemented
3 - Documented - Not Implemented
4 - Documented - Partially Implemented
5 - Implemented - Not Documented
6 - No Records / No Objective Evidence
7 - Inc. Records / Doc-process mismatch

Simon
 
#24
Hi

Excellent spreadsheet. I've long been tweaking a number of files I use to do just this. My only issue has been getting everything to tie in. We have ISO9001 and ISO17025 so they are not totally in alignment but they are getting there.

If I could ask an obvious question with regards the scores used. Maybe get an idea or fuller description of each score level. You have mentioned in your sheet that you can score more than once so I am assuming it could be say a score in 1 and 6?

1 - Fully Documented & Implemented
2 - Not Documented & Not Implemented
3 - Documented - Not Implemented
4 - Documented - Partially Implemented
5 - Implemented - Not Documented
6 - No Records / No Objective Evidence
7 - Inc. Records / Doc-process mismatch

Simon
More like 4 and 6 and or 7.
If you get a 1, then there would be no need to discount further.


Note:
I have since changed this scoring system to a completely different system…since I changed jobs and I am starting from scratch. That older scoring system only worked well for an established system, IMHO.
I'll share the scoring labels a little later. Just got home and I have 3 hungry felines circling me! :mg:
 
Last edited:
#25
Here is what I am using now and it most likely will evolve as I try out this new scoring:
1 - (100 pts) Fully Implemented
2 - (-100 pts) Nothing Implemented
3 - (-50 pts) Under 50% Implemented
4 - (-40 pts) No Records OR Objective Evidence
5 - (-30 pts) Over 50% Implemented
6 - (-20 pts) Process / Document Mismatch
7 - (-10 pts) Missing or Incomplete Records
 
S

Simon123456

#26
Many thanks.

Mine is an established system but in need of a review due to the number of other standards and new clauses we are introducing.

Thanks for the help
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#27
1. Just a reminder, ISO does not require a scoring system. That is a convention that was set up for an item by item type gap audit.

2. Looking at the CD1 Draft of ISO 9001, it appears they might finally be making the requirement to follow a process approach more explicit...15 years later. As such, the auditing will need to fully follow a process approach. For a lot of ISO companies, that will be a new thing in their audits.
 
#28
1. Just a reminder, ISO does not require a scoring system. That is a convention that was set up for an item by item type gap audit.

2. Looking at the CD1 Draft of ISO 9001, it appears they might finally be making the requirement to follow a process approach more explicit...15 years later. As such, the auditing will need to fully follow a process approach. For a lot of ISO companies, that will be a new thing in their audits.
1. You are correct. No scoring system is required.

2. No. The scoring system is not set up as a item by item gap audit. Not at all! I do not audit clause by clause, etc. I merely score how I estimate that the company meets each requirement of the ISO 9001 standard after the audit each month. Audits vary and I cover a lot of areas at once.

This scoring method is an easy method for assessing compliance…and it works.
 
#29
I agree with Helmut. Crusader, before you go too far down this road, points scoring will lead to exactly the wrong behaviour IMHO. It will become a case of "points" and not management understanding what they need to do to effectively manage their processes and use audit to validate that. I've encountered too many managers who simply pick up on easy to grasp numbers and completely overlook what they mean! As a CB auditor, too many people wanted to know how they compared on the total number of ncs that other companies get - what a stupid question. They might have just 1! "The system is not implemented".

So, I'd appeal to you to review what is necessary to drive management to do something - which is going to be risk based - risk to customers, their satisfaction, compliance to regs (if applicable, risk to stakeholders (usually $$$) or their personal risk of missing their objectives. That will be sufficient to get action, not "50/100".
 
#30
I agree with Helmut. Crusader, before you go too far down this road, points scoring will lead to exactly the wrong behaviour IMHO. It will become a case of "points" and not management understanding what they need to do to effectively manage their processes and use audit to validate that. I've encountered too many managers who simply pick up on easy to grasp numbers and completely overlook what they mean! As a CB auditor, too many people wanted to know how they compared on the total number of ncs that other companies get - what a stupid question. They might have just 1! "The system is not implemented".

So, I'd appeal to you to review what is necessary to drive management to do something - which is going to be risk based - risk to customers, their satisfaction, compliance to regs (if applicable, risk to stakeholders (usually $$$) or their personal risk of missing their objectives. That will be sufficient to get action, not "50/100".
Seriously, I think you and Helmut are misinterpreting the scoring tool. You're going too deep into some other direction and I'm like scratching my head?whhhaaaat? How'd you get there from way over here?

It's a simple tool or an aid for the user. Apparently, I don't have the issues you say may happen and I've never had those issues since starting this scoring tool.

Truce! :bigwave:
 
Top Bottom