New Auditor looking for help with ISO 9001

[Colin]

It sounds like you are making good progress so far so well done on that. The sequence of training I would suggest to someone in your position would be:

A 1 day foundation course in your chosen standard(s)
A 2 day Internal Auditor course (preferably IRCA registered but not essential)
A 1 or 2 day 'How to be a quality manager' course

These should be done in this order and quite soon after taking up the post.

Then, some way down the line (at least 6 months) consider a lead auditor course

 

[QHSE1808]

I love this forum! Thank you Colin, I will take a look and see if I can put together some kind of quote for him, time to refer back to my sales days..

 

[gpainter]

You came to the right place

 

[QHSE1808]

Next up... Training accreditation.

I have two courses lined up, an IMS course, considered to be 9001/14001/18001 foundation and the internal auditing training in one course, which is IRCA accredited, and an IOSH Managing Safely course.

I am very happy with the content of these courses, but out of curiosity, are there any benefits for me receiving these certificates? I understand that the courses have to contain X&Y to be accredited and therefore I will learn all that is required at this stage, that is not my query. Do the certs help me on paper?

 

[CarolinaQ]

For general Quality related reading, you might want to check out the American Society for Quality site. (ASQ.org) Full access requires membership, but they do have some information tagged as open access. Also, their monthly magazine (available on line), Quality Progress, typically has some interesting information, some of which is open access.

Good luck!

 

[Colin]

Next up... Training accreditation.

I have two courses lined up, an IMS course, considered to be 9001/14001/18001 foundation and the internal auditing training in one course, which is IRCA accredited, and an IOSH Managing Safely course.

I am very happy with the content of these courses, but out of curiosity, are there any benefits for me receiving these certificates? I understand that the courses have to contain X&Y to be accredited and therefore I will learn all that is required at this stage, that is not my query. Do the certs help me on paper?

Rightly or wrongly, external auditors have a habit of asking whether people have been trained in the tasks they perform e.g. internal auditing. Now you could argue that the training doesn't really matter, its the competence of the person which matters. However, there is often training involved in becoming competent and it is easy stuff to check certificates. Likewise, it is easy to raise an N/C if there is no documentary evidence of training having been received.

 

[TPMB4]

If you have only experience of the processes and through that (and the management deeming you competent) you get handed a role in internal auditing. What evidence is considered acceptable to prevent a NC being written up? I am only asking because certificates can not be the only way to attain competence. Since auditing is very much evidence gathering (or so my understanding of it is) then what evidence, other than certificates from external training courses, count?

If you learn your trade through a trained and experienced mentor I guess you can end up gaining the experience and competences needed. Proof of this is not as easy to produce as from a course. Is it acceptable for the mentor to "sign you off" so to speak? It is this reason I think the safest way is through accredited courses.

 

[QHSE1808]

That is fair enough, I noticed that some of the courses are certificates of attendance, which really, in my view, stands for absolutely nothing! It was these I was really questioning I suppose. Though I expect the knowledge I can gain from these are a stepping stone for my capabilities in attaining IOSH and ECITB assessment based certs. I can imagine for some less scrupulous and dedicated delegates, its just a cover.

 

[QHSE1808]

Now, here's one...
The manuals I am currently trawling though (and almost finished a first very rough integrated draft) contains both present and future tense. Lots of 'are' and 'will be'. How does this sit with you folks? The point that it is your current manual suggests that it is already in place and true enough, it is how these procedures will be carried out when initiated but I can see that if you were to be pedantic about it, it implies that it is not. Thoughts? Am I overthinking this?!

 

[Jim Wynne]

Now, here's one...
The manuals I am currently trawling though (and almost finished a first very rough integrated draft) contains both present and future tense. Lots of 'are' and 'will be'. How does this sit with you folks? The point that it is your current manual suggests that it is already in place and true enough, it is how these procedures will be carried out when initiated but I can see that if you were to be pedantic about it, it implies that it is not. Thoughts? Am I overthinking this?!

What you're referring to is the difference between the active and passive voices, with the former being generally preferred. It's better to say "We do x" than it is to say "We shall do x." This doesn't mean that an entire system of documents should be changed on this account, but there should be some attention paid to style.

On a personal level, I think that the words "shall" and "strive" should be stricken on sight.