Peer Review prior to Stage 2 Audit - Acceptable or Not?

[Polly Pure Bread]

I was OK with this until the last sentence. If you do peer review because you feel that everything is not alright, this points to some issue with "official" internal audits, otherwise you would use the IA process to review the area that might not be right. Unless I'm missing something.

Correction, peer review should be done regularly whether or not everything is alright.

 

[AndyN]

If this is an internal audit, there shouldn't be any "randomness" about it!! Especially since you are preparing for a Certification Audit.

The scope of the audit should be sufficiently focused in the recent implementation of the QMS so that it was sufficiently sampled to show it was both compliant and effective.

This worries me about the training people get as auditors, that they don't take samples from the implementation period or look at the process's performance as part of their planning, hence they don't narrow in on the real things that count.... It can also be an issue of audit management giving them too little direction or preparation that the auditors go 'wandering off' the track that should have been defined for them....

IMHO this is why you have had to create another level of checking instead of doing audits 'properly'.....

 

[Big Jim]

I don't have a problem with peer review being one of your audit tools. It may be a bit unusual, but I don't see any conflict with the standard. It would become questionable if it were the only tool though.

I do have a problem with it not being part of you plan and schedule. 8.2.2 clearly shows that the internal audit needs to be planned and scheduled. If you are going to use peer review as part of your internal audit, you must show that it was planned and scheduled as part of your overall internal audit scheme. At least that's my take on it.

If you are just going to throw it in as something extra, it ain't going to fly.

 

[AndyN]

I don't have a problem with peer review being one of your audit tools. It may be a bit unusual, but I don't see any conflict with the standard. It would become questionable if it were the only tool though.

As long as he can show 'ojectivity and impartiality' of the process, scheduled based on 'status and importance'........and what about competency of the 'peers' to do the review......

Sounds like more work than ensuring a more effective internal audit process in the first place.....

 

[Big Jim]

As long as he can show 'ojectivity and impartiality' of the process, scheduled based on 'status and importance'........and what about competency of the 'peers' to do the review......

Sounds like more work than ensuring a more effective internal audit process in the first place.....

I'm suggesting that it could be part of the overall internal audit program. It could be part of scheduling based on "status and importance". And yes, "objectivity and impartiality" needs to be preserved and the peers need to be competent.

I also agree that it is not ideal, and you may be right, it may be more effort to make sure it is conforming than it is worth.

 

[ChrissieO]

As long as he can show 'ojectivity and impartiality' of the process, scheduled based on 'status and importance'........and what about competency of the 'peers' to do the review......

Sounds like more work than ensuring a more effective internal audit process in the first place.....

The Peer AUdit/check - Is it worth the time and effort?

The peer audit seems to me a firefighting exercise in order to obtain a "Clean" audit. Don't fight the fire, stop it happening in the first place.

Surely if there is a known problem with documentation so that these need to be done, it is time the document control process was revisited as this is evidence of your doc control process not being effective.

Why does everyone have this "Clean" audit obsession, a "Clean" audit frankly would be more worrying to me than one with OFIs and /or minors. If you constantly have "Clean" audits, maybe it is time you changed your assesor or your assesing body.

I personally welcome findings either OFIs or minor, from our auditors. One it shows they are doing there job and worth the zillions we pay them and also it gives us the opportunity to highlight the issue and improve.

This is most helpful in areas where internal auditors have found deficencies in the past but management have done nothing about them. When these are observed by an external auditor they seem to take notice.......wonder why.

I have been known to steer an external auditor in the direction of a possible NC because it has been raised to management in the past and nothing has been done.


Chrissie x

 

[Polly Pure Bread]

Thank you for your thoughts, Andy, and for the others who responded.

Could be an issue of a weak internal audit program? For the sake of argumentation, say internal audit program is weak; can the peer issue CAR for the same (weak audit program) like other lapses?

If peer review is unnecessary and redundant, can the process owner itself issue CAR for his/her own lapses for corrective actions? That way such nonconformities will not be reported during stage 2 audit because you are aware of the nonconformities and you are doing something to meet the requirements. Besides, process owners knew his/her own lapses better than auditors.

Isn’t the above actions address control of nonconforming product?

 

[howste]

Internal audit is already completed but there are still lapses not reported. If the organization conducts peer review to identify lapses and issue CARs so process owners can take appropriate actions, would these lapses can no longer be reported as NCs during third-party certification audit? Stage 2 audit is one month away.

It depends... If the nonconformities don't exist at the time of the audit, the 3rd party auditor shouldn't write them as nonconformities during the audit. If a corrective action has been initiated but the nonconformities still exist, the 3rd party auditor should still write them as nonconformities if they find them. The CB shouldn't issue a certificate of conformity when nonconformities still exist.

 

[AndyN]

dQA:

Here's my take on the situation:-

IF I were to be your auditor and you showed me that you'd identified issues through a 'peer review' and you told me what happened and I then looked at your internal audit program, what would I find?

Would I find, for example, that there had been superficial audits? Or audits only using ISO 9001 as the audit criterion? Would you show me that there hadn't been a number of audits, that they weren't well prepared for, frequent enough or process based....?

You see, I'd be inclined to think there was a fundamental weakness that had been 'papered over' by this 'extra' peer review, which is highly unusual compared to about 90% of what others do.....

 

[Cari Spears]

Are you saying that we can’t check our system apart from official internal audit and issue additional CAR for proper RCA and contingent and corrective actions? [/FONT]

Just addressing this question alone: Anyone can issue a CAR at any time that they find a nonconformance - whether you are internal auditing or "peer review"ing or just walking past on your way to the restroom and happen to see something - people stumble across issues all the time when they aren't looking for them. You don't need to be engaged in an internal audit to initiate a CAR - do so whenever you want.