Kevin:
I disagree with interpretations being a matter of all of us 'being human'. It is an issue of experience and understanding mixed with intent. I have worked with many standards over the years. I cut my teeth on military specifications. I got my first job in quality because I told the company I understood them (MIL SPEC). I studied the appropriate ones for the product as required by contracts. I often had to explain how the company I worked for 'meets the intent' of a spec. I got into ISO as I thought it was comparatively easy - and it is.
We come down to interpretations. And with QS came rediculousness (spelling?). But then, QS is a customer requirement and ISO is an international specification, if you will.
Anyway, I approach every client from the First meeting with a diatribe which approximates the following:
"I cannot do this for you. QS9000 and ISO900x are, as a group, requirements in so far as registration is concerned. I have to transfer my knowledge to someone. And - when that person is ready, that person will understand the requirements and the intent of the details of the requirements with respect to their business and company systems."
"Auditors are often problematic in part because there has been a rush by marginally qualified people to and thru the Lead Auditor Certification Process."
I had one auditor who was a college professor who smelled money. When it came to interpretations, he was often a wash. Yes - I know the 'time in business' aspect but even that does not ensure consistent interpretations.
I do admit the college professor would listen to reason and we often 'worked through it' to a convergent point as you say.
"You will have to be ready to fight with the auditor over points of contention. Auditors are often simply not right in their interpretation. In my very first ISO9001 audit, within 30 minutes of the start of the audit we were given our first 'minor'. The auditor said it was not easy for him to tell the differences between the current quality manual and the last version. I had written a documentation database for the company. All revisions were detailed except for that one. We had taken the old quality manual and completely revised it - like major, major revision. In the database field where we listed the changes, we simply put a statement which said "Due to the dramatic and extensive changes, the changes are not listed here. Please compare the two manuals if you need to tell differences." We did this because it didn't make much sense to list 100 pages of changes (which is what it would have taken if each specific change had been listed and addressed). I asked the auditor where in ISO9001 it said it has to be easy for him to tell the differences. He hemmed and hawed and thumbed the spec and finally said "It's implied". Well, now, bull shit. He never did buy off on it - we kept that minor. I can say, however, the rest of the audit went quite well. I think I cowed the guy. Attacked him right off the bat with a Show Me Where.... But then - we were all ready to explain how we complied. We were ready!
The point is you have to understand the spec and the intent and be ready to explain and argue your position or auditors will end up running right over you and you'll end up doing things to your systems 'because the auditor said so'. Choose your battles well, but there are times when battle is neccessary.
It's not 'human nature' - it's a matter of interpretation, understanding of intent, and being Ready To Explain! Don't get me wrong - I have run into a lot of very qualified auditors. None the less, one must be ready.
I tell clients: I'm little more than a piano teacher. I can teach you how to play faster than you can learn yourself. I can teach you how to read music. I can teach you what the conventions are. I can teach you how to play the game. BUT - when the concert starts my fingers cannot be on the piano keys. You must play your own concert. And you have to be ready for it. I can't do it for you.
Every client I have had has been 'first audit' successful. And they know their stuff - they are READY! Much like Formal Logic and Debate in college, this is a game any company can win.
Nor do I mean to detract from the 'goodness' of ISO9001 (or many aspects of QS9000). I believe there is 'goodness' in them both. This is to say, for example, a defined, substantial, 'robust' design process is 'goodness' just as well designed and executed Nonconformance and Corrective Action systems have 'goodness'. They are beneficial and important systems to any business.
OK - now rip me up!
