I would say that this is one of the reasons that a lot of companies are no longer willing to work with automotive field.
Major Nonconformance Criteria
- Thread starter Crimpshrine13
- Start date
Crimpshrine13
Involved In Discussions
It's a very strange and awkward and even intimidating environment when some auditors come with attitudes like as if they're police officers (as if they're above someone perhaps?). You hire an independent contractors to have them look at your system, tell you things that are compliant and not compliant to the standard, you correct the issues to make the system compliant to the standard and to improve your system, and then continue to be certified - that's the whole purpose of doing this. But, when auditors come with attitudes, things go in unwanted directions. It's a fact. I don't expect the auditors to "help" us, but they are supposed to act in professional manners and have an obligation to explain and clarify to have the auditees understand what they are having to say or what they are asking, and also RESPECT the auditees. If the auditees don't seem to understand what the auditors say, they are ought to clarify or rephrase it instead of giving an attitude and decide as if the auditees knows "nothing." I believe this is the issue that most auditees have when they encounter the auditors who don't explain or clarify what she/he says and decide that something is not compliant without truly looking into what it is and discuss with the auditees. So, it's not so much of expectations of getting "help" to get certified, but the issue is some auditors not trying to understand the auditee processes and/or better communicate in these cases (and some organizations do things in their unique ways so it can be a pain to understand the unique processes, I understand). With that said, some auditors are too much focused on maintaining the impartiality (which is important and a must), but forget to respect and better communicate with the auditees. Don't get me wrong, I've seen very good auditors too and majority of them are respectful, knowledgeable, and very professional. But as important as maintaining impartiality, the auditors must understand that we're humans too. Addressing noncompliance itself won't hurt the auditees' feelings, but there are ways to communicate it with respect. Some auditors lack this skill unfortunately.
If auditors are not communicating with the auditees well and not getting the information the auditees have, then I do not believe that is achieving the intended results of the audits (you may only get the shortsighted conclusion), thus it will not be value-added for the organization being audited.
And that was our last experience on top of the auditor billing miscellaneous (that were very questionable) expenses (which CB later credited us). I can care less who thinks what as to how we perceive what we experienced - it is a fact and nothing is going to change. Auditees just need to be respected as much as we respect the auditors. I didn't think this specific auditor respected or cared us at all - if she did, she would have communicated better during the audit, and she wouldn't charge miscellaneous expenses. She probably thought that we would just pay without a question.
If auditors are not communicating with the auditees well and not getting the information the auditees have, then I do not believe that is achieving the intended results of the audits (you may only get the shortsighted conclusion), thus it will not be value-added for the organization being audited.
And that was our last experience on top of the auditor billing miscellaneous (that were very questionable) expenses (which CB later credited us). I can care less who thinks what as to how we perceive what we experienced - it is a fact and nothing is going to change. Auditees just need to be respected as much as we respect the auditors. I didn't think this specific auditor respected or cared us at all - if she did, she would have communicated better during the audit, and she wouldn't charge miscellaneous expenses. She probably thought that we would just pay without a question.
Crimpshine, of course we vary infinitely and some are better than others. If you are not satisfied with the way you are treated you have every right to request a different auditor. I hope you will, the experience isn't supposed to be difficult as you've described.
Randy
Super Moderator
Ha, ha that's pretty funny, never heard that one before.........This was me...about 53 years ago so I guess "as if" doesn't apply
Here's where you're a bit off....If and when you encounter what you say, there is nothing that says you can't stop the audit right then and there and invite the offending auditor to get his a&& out of your facility right now.......Do not Pass Go and Do not get $200, and get your A&& OUT!
Now if you've communicated problems to your CB without some kind of effective and understandable action, barring one or two technical items that can be rectified, there isn't anything that keeps you from telling them to pack sand and change CB's before, during or after you file a nasty and fantastic written complaint to their Accreditation Body stating all the where-to's and what-for's.
Rest assured, I can never audit you as a 3rd party for the IATF scheme for a couple reasons, one of which is that they found out my parents were married to each other more than a year before my birth and for another being I don't have "inflated ego" written in my resume.
Good luck with whatever is ahead.
prashantha hk
Involved In Discussions
Dear all, There is a requirement for availability of corporate policies of the organization. But training to be provided to all the employees and they should able to answer? According to me only HR is responsible. What is your thought?
Only HR is responsible for what? Setting the Policies and periodically reviewing them, checking that they are being followed, making all staff aware of the policies? All staff should be made aware of the policies and where they can refer to them, but they do not need to learn them nor be able to repeat them "parrot fashion" when questioned. For most staff in many organisations, they won't care one iota about the policies, they just want to be able to get along doing their own job.... it's a bit like spreading the information on how the organisation is doing in meeting its objectives/KPIs. In theory it's a great idea to brief all staff periodically on progress but again, for many people they don't care at all (or very little anyway) - their main concern is making sure that get paid at the end of the month, and that they feel they're doing a good job every working day
Crimpshrine13
Involved In Discussions
I am not sure if you are referring to quality policy or corporate policy in general, but employees should be able to answer quality policies of the company. It's part of leadership, written in ISO 9001:2015 (5.2.2).
ISO 9001:2015
5.2.2 Communicating the quality policy
Quality policy shall:
a) be available and be maintained as documented information;
b) be communicated, understood and applied within the organization;
c) be available to relevant interested parties, as appropriate.
prashantha hk
Involved In Discussions
Hi, I am not talking about Quality policy. I mentioned only corporate policies as per IATF 16949:2016.
I’m not familiar with the IATF standard itself so hopefully someone else here can speak to the actual requirement (it is alwasyys helpful to quote the requirement you are concerned with. Not everyone has experience in every standard nor do we always have the specific standard at our fingertips, but since the standards are similar and derive from previous standards we can usually speak credibly to any standard once we know the exact wording)
Even with my lack of IATF knowledge I would say that it is essential for employees to be trained ind know where to find company policies that affect them. This only makes sense. Company policies address things like attendance/time off, ethics, discrimination, promotion and job changes, etc. why would anyone want to these to be secret? And these are not only HR policies but are often - for example ethics is often form legal. I don’t really understand your question or why you are saying that only HR is responsible?
Even with my lack of IATF knowledge I would say that it is essential for employees to be trained ind know where to find company policies that affect them. This only makes sense. Company policies address things like attendance/time off, ethics, discrimination, promotion and job changes, etc. why would anyone want to these to be secret? And these are not only HR policies but are often - for example ethics is often form legal. I don’t really understand your question or why you are saying that only HR is responsible?
Are you suggesting that only HR is responsible for training on the corporate policies?
The standard does not say WHO is responsible for training, only that training and communication shall be done. It is up to the organization to determine what the training processes and responsibilities will be. And these developed training processes and responsibilities will be influenced by many factors such as size of the organization, skill sets of trainers, training systems, and several other items.
Similar threads
