ISO 9001 Qualified Auditor and Internal TS Auditor Requirements

[qusys]

Probably I was not so clear at all.
I am only speaking about internal auditors and their related "qualification" for ISO TS as per standard requirement and not for registar body auditors.
So, as per what I learnt during a course for internal auditors ISO TS qualification, the organization shall have internal auditors qualified to verify the requirements of ISO TS standards.
"Qualification" should imply the frequence of recognized courses and passing an examination held by recognized bodies that do this training and service( e.g.Anfia, Iaob,Vda etc.) .

For this reason, I think that "internal qualifcation" held by a certified internal auditor versus other members of the same organization should not be enough to respond to the requirement. Besides, an organization that wants to get certification on ISO TS shall show the list of all qualified internal auditors in the phase 1 readiness review.
Hope I was clear enough.

The IATF scheme can't be the "common ground" for internal auditor qualification. IATF qualification is not available to most internal auditors. It's only available to certification body auditors.

Please let me know if I misunderstood your point...

 

[howste]

"Qualification" should imply the frequence of recognized courses and passing an examination held by recognized bodies that do this training and service( e.g.Anfia, Iaob,Vda etc.) .

For this reason, I think that "internal qualifcation" held by a certified internal auditor versus other members of the same organization should not be enough to respond to the requirement. Besides, an organization that wants to get certification on ISO TS shall show the list of all qualified internal auditors in the phase 1 readiness review.
Hope I was clear enough.

I understand what you mean now, but I disagree. Qualification should be based on competence.

I am a provider of TS 16949 auditor training, and as such I would love to have everyone attend my courses to become qualified as internal auditors. I believe that attending an outside training course can be an excellent part of developing competent internal auditors. However, organizations that do training (such my organization and those you mentioned) are not the only ones that can help develop auditors that are competent to do TS 16949 internal audits.

I'm a 3rd party TS 16949 auditor, and I wasn't particularly impressed with the course I attended and passed to become qualified. On the other hand, I've seen quite a few competent auditors that were developed with internal training and coaching without outside help. The criteria for qualification must be demonstrated competence and results.

If I go into an organization and see audit records showing that thorough audits took place, it demonstrates that the auditors were competent. If I see that the audits were focused on matters of priority to the organization's customers and to the organization itself, it demonstrates competence. If I see that the organization is improving as a result of the audit process, it demonstrates competence. Whether the auditors attended and passed an externally-provided auditor course is insignificant compared to the audit results.

On the other hand if I go into an organization and see audit records showing that incomplete audits took place, that some requirements weren't audited, that subjective evidence was prevalent, that that the auditors ignored customer and company priorities, and that the system did not have the opportunity to improve as a result, it demonstrates that the auditors weren't competent. This is true even if they attended and passed an external course provided by "experts" in the industry.

 

[brahmaiah]

I understand what you mean now, but I disagree. Qualification should be based on competence.

I am a provider of TS 16949 auditor training, and as such I would love to have everyone attend my courses to become qualified as internal auditors. I believe that attending an outside training course can be an excellent part of developing competent internal auditors. However, organizations that do training (such my organization and those you mentioned) are not the only ones that can help develop auditors that are competent to do TS 16949 internal audits.

I'm a 3rd party TS 16949 auditor, and I wasn't particularly impressed with the course I attended and passed to become qualified. On the other hand, I've seen quite a few competent auditors that were developed with internal training and coaching without outside help. The criteria for qualification must be demonstrated competence and results.

If I go into an organization and see audit records showing that thorough audits took place, it demonstrates that the auditors were competent. If I see that the audits were focused on matters of priority to the organization's customers and to the organization itself, it demonstrates competence. If I see that the organization is improving as a result of the audit process, it demonstrates competence. Whether the auditors attended and passed an externally-provided auditor course is insignificant compared to the audit results.

On the other hand if I go into an organization and see audit records showing that incomplete audits took place, that some requirements weren't audited, that subjective evidence was prevalent, that that the auditors ignored customer and company priorities, and that the system did not have the opportunity to improve as a result, it demonstrates that the auditors weren't competent. This is true even if they attended and passed an external course provided by "experts" in the industry.

I fully agree with Mr. Howste. Criteria for competence are the resultant output. The CA should judge the competence of internal auditors by reviewing the internal audit reports critically and not by looking at certificates. Because many trainers are incompetent themselves. Their existence is also based on certificates and not on their competence. Some training organization are still worse as they employ cheap trainers and survive only on the strength of the brand name of their company.

V.J.Brahmaiah

 

[Stijloor]

<snip> Because many trainers are incompetent themselves. Their existence is also based on certificates and not on their competence. Some training organization are still worse as they employ cheap trainers and survive only on the strength of the brand name of their company.

V.J.Brahmaiah

Be cautious with generalizations. What have you actually observed that brings you to that conclusion?

Stijloor.

 

[brahmaiah]

Be cautious with generalizations. What have you actually observed that brings you to that conclusion?

Stijloor.

That is the result of my 40 years experiance in the industry.I am myself a trained lead assessor and a consultant for TS16949 and SPC.
In any case my opinion does not apply to all trainers.It certainly applies to some training organizations.Or else how do you explain the dilution of present certification standards.
It is required to be objective on this subject rather than too sensitive.
V.J.Brahmaiah

 

[qusys]

Anyway, I think it needs they both. Qualification is composed of some elements: to know , to know how to do , know how to be and know how to develop themselves.
Ok, I understand to see at results but I ask this: driving licence car is an option to drive a car, for example? Is it enough to be clever or expert in driving a car or a bus without passing an examination in front of a recognized body, after a specific training program ad hoc?

I fully agree with Mr. Howste. Criteria for competence are the resultant output. The CA should judge the competence of internal auditors by reviewing the internal audit reports critically and not by looking at certificates. Because many trainers are incompetent themselves. Their existence is also based on certificates and not on their competence. Some training organization are still worse as they employ cheap trainers and survive only on the strength of the brand name of their company.

V.J.Brahmaiah

 

[howste]

Anyway, I think it needs they both. Qualification is composed of some elements: to know , to know how to do , know how to be and know how to develop themselves.
Ok, I understand to see at results but I ask this: driving licence car is an option to drive a car, for example? Is it enough to be clever or expert in driving a car or a bus without passing an examination in front of a recognized body, after a specific training program ad hoc?

I don't think your analogy applies here. In the case you specified, there's a legal requirement to receive a license. If there was a TS 16949 or customer-specific requirement for 3rd party internal auditor certification, there would obviously be no alternative.

Following your line of reasoning, why would we stop at internal auditor certification? All quality managers must have a Manager of Quality/Organizational Excellence Certification (CMQ/OE). All quality engineers must have a Quality Engineer Certification (CQE). All inspection personnel must have a Quality Inspector Certification (CQI). While we're at it, let's require all purchasing personnel to have a Certified Professional Purchasing Manager (CPPM) qualification. All design engineers must be certified as Professional Engineers (PE). To top it off, all management personnel must have a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) degree because without it they will clearly mismanage the business!

Now excuse me, I'm off to help my teenage son study for his Janitorial Certification exam.

 

[qusys]

The example was only to make an analogy.
Anyway , as per what I saw and learned in those ISO TS qualification courses ( 5 days long) , the certificate is a good objective evidence to demonstrate qualification for internal auditor, clearly coupling it with internal audit reports, deep knowledge of ISO TS clauses as well as customers requirements.
While only looking at internal audit results, it could give a partial outlook and might cause potential non conformances in case of problems in some interpratation of the stanrdars or what else, just to make an example.
But this is my point of view, based upon experience.
What I've said related qualication is valid only for internal auditors of an organization ( ISO TS 8.2.25) . As to the other jobs that you mention , there is no specific requirement for qualification, out of to be compliant to ISO 9001 clauses 6.2.1-6.2.2 ect.

I don't think your analogy applies here. In the case you specified, there's a legal requirement to receive a license. If there was a TS 16949 or customer-specific requirement for 3rd party internal auditor certification, there would obviously be no alternative.

Following your line of reasoning, why would we stop at internal auditor certification? All quality managers must have a Manager of Quality/Organizational Excellence Certification (CMQ/OE). All quality engineers must have a Quality Engineer Certification (CQE). All inspection personnel must have a Quality Inspector Certification (CQI). While we're at it, let's require all purchasing personnel to have a Certified Professional Purchasing Manager (CPPM) qualification. All design engineers must be certified as Professional Engineers (PE). To top it off, all management personnel must have a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) degree because without it they will clearly mismanage the business!

Now excuse me, I'm off to help my teenage son study for his Janitorial Certification exam.

 

[howste]

As to the other jobs that you mention, there is no specific requirement for qualification, out of to be compliant to ISO 9001 clauses 6.2.1-6.2.2 ect.

This applies to internal auditors only:

The organization shall have internal auditors who are qualified to audit the requirements of this Technical Specification( see 6.2.2.2).

This applies to everyone:

Personnel performing specific assigned tasks shall be qualified, as required, with particular attention to the satisfaction of customer requirements.
NOTE 1 This applies to all employees having an effect on quality at all levels of the organization.

What's the difference?

 

[qusys]

I respond with an interpretation of mine, so it is only my personal point of view.
As to the internal auditors, certificate of qualification is valitated by IATF and by the national recognized body that released it ( there is also the symbol on the certificate) .
As to the other job function, I think that the certificates of bachelor , degree, Phd in the disciplines that you mentioned fully absolve the requirement for "qualification".
Those disciplines are taught and earnt in national colleges and universities as well, so the fact of obtaining themt could be seen as a sort of qualification.
Anyway, there are additional courses given by recognized bodis that are supportive to strenghten and refresh the background for specific professional roles ( for example, six sigma green belt, black belt and so on...).
The difference I see is that there is no college or univeristy course that qualify people to work as ISO TS internal auditors at the end of the studies.
Besides, I want to highlight that for both it is also important the "training on the job".
Finally, I repeat that this kind of certificate is a good objective evidence to respond to the 8.2.2.5 requirement, together with the knowledge of ISO TS clauses , of customer requirements, as well as performing and report internal audit on orgazanization processes as well, that are only possible if working in an organization.

This applies to internal auditors only:

This applies to everyone:

What's the difference?