Poll: Should auditors promote the process approach?

[Sidney Vianna]

I find it very interesting that it is "predominantly" CB Auditors that keep on harping about "adding value". Most Man Reps (especially the competent ones) would prefer they did not!

My experience is totally different. Most organizations realize that, in this very competitive marketplace, one can not afford to have relationships that don't add value. Experienced auditors have a wealth of knowledge, which, when properly shared, can be bring significant benefits to multiple stakeholders.
And, if adding value to audits was a not a global concern, can you explain, then, why the TC 176 published the How to Add Value during the audit process paper?

 

[ISO 9001 Guy]

First, a friendly suggestion: dense blocks of text such as those above are difficult to read on normal computer monitor, and almost impossible on something smaller. If you break it up into paragraphs and use some white space, it'll be much easier to read.

Now. One thing I've noticed as absent from all of this is a cogent, rigorous definition of the process approach that we can use to contrast with the element-by-element thing. We also don't know much about the element-by-element thing except that you don't like it (I don't either, but for different reasons). In my experience, matching documentation to the clauses of the standard isn't necessarily antithetical to the process approach; it's just a way of classifying things.

Attempts have been made to draw you out on these issues but they've come to a halt via "let's agree to disagree," which leaves significant questions hanging in the air. You've made a somewhat radical proposition, so I don't think it's too much to ask you to support it with something other than plain assertions. As I suggested in an earlier post, you've reached your conclusion but won't support it with logical antecedents such that we can see that if A is true and B is true and C is true, by logical progression D (your thesis) must also be true. Your defense of A, B and C has mostly consisted of "Let's agree to disagree," the result of which is to bring fruitful discussion to a sudden halt.

I'll make one more attempt to understand your reasoning, this time by way of a hypothetical situation. Suppose we have a company with a QMS that's been designed and documented in PA fashion, such that a competent auditor is satisfied with implementation of the PA. NOw suppose that the company decides, for their own reasons, to reclassify the documentation such that its numbering system aligns with the numbered clauses of the standard--nothing else changes. Now you are handed the company's documentation and are asked to determine--strictly from the documentation--whether or not the PA has been implemented.

Given that scenario, here are two questions:

1. Has the company, by deciding to reclassify existing documentation, voided their implementation of the PA?
2. Will you be able to tell, simply by looking at the reclassified documentation with no further history, whether the PA has been implemented or not?

Please, Jim:
Why wouldn't quality professionals wishing to add value to their client organizations' QMSs recommend an approach that is more sensible and easier for organizations to deal with, an approach formally endorsed by ISO and TC 176?" A separate answer may be appropriate for: consultants, auditors, and CBS.

 

[dknox4]

My experience is totally different. Most organizations realize that, in this very competitive marketplace, one can not afford to have relationships that don't add value. Experienced auditors have a wealth of knowledge, which, when properly shared, can be bring significant benefits to multiple stakeholders.
And, if adding value to audits was a not a global concern, can you explain, then, why the TC 176 published the How to Add Value during the audit process paper?

There seems to be a basic assumption, by some of the contributors to this thread, that an audit to the standard with all of the normally associated reports is not of value to the audited organization. I get the impression that some auditors feel they must expand on the standard in order to be "adding value". Is it just me?

 

[Jen Kirley]

I'll be happy to indulge you here. I believe the beginnings to the answer to your question are posted elsewhere in this thread (by you).

I humbly suggest you are avoiding answering my question. I asked for specifics on what you, the auditor, would accept as objective evidence your client is using the process approach, and this thread contains almost complete theory. Why won't you provide that?

Now for your question.

"Why wouldn't quality professionals wishing to add value to their client organizations' QMSs recommend an approach that is more sensible and easier for organizations to deal with, an approach formally endorsed by ISO and TC 176?"

I have said it many times, but I will do it once more:

1) My understanding of the external auditor's role is that it has a boundary between assessing and assisting. External auditors don't get to make recommendations like "You should use a process approach." It is beyond the scope of their role as impartial assessors to the Standard.

2) An organization that uses the element-by-element approach because its QMS is in early development will not understand the recommendation "You should use a process approach." But the registrar cannot go into details without consulting, except perhaps to give some examples of what he/she has seen other organizations do, and how it helped them.

The registrar can, upon subsequent visits, peel back the layers and probe more deeply into the system, explore processes to more deeply assess effectiveness and how the process approach is coming along. A high quality registrar can do this and lead the client company along in its development, possibly without the client company even knowing it's happening. This high quality registrar can do so without ever recommending the process approach, but he/she would still be promoting the process approach as ISO wishes.

An organization that uses the element-to-element approach because it is only interested in doing so (its heart isn't in the QMS for the sake of Quality's ability to make them bigger, faster and stronger) is unlikely to understand a recommendation to use a process approach; if they did understand, they are likely to reject the advice as voodoo and get back to accounting gimmicks or whatever else makes them profitable.

Is that clear enough yet - did I do a better job of communicating this time?

 

[Richard Pike]

My experience is totally different. Most organizations realize that, in this very competitive marketplace, one can not afford to have relationships that don't add value. Experienced auditors have a wealth of knowledge, which, when properly shared, can be bring significant benefits to multiple stakeholders.
And, if adding value to audits was a not a global concern, can you explain, then, why the TC 176 published the How to Add Value during the audit process paper?

Absolutly - Organizations choose CB,s --- CB,s do not choose Organisations

I hope you don't think I am being to flippant about a serious subject (not the Process Approach but Auditors trying to justify their position with anything more than a professional audit).

Let me reverse the question. Just why was it necessary for TC 176 to issue a "guideline" so long after 2000 and if they thought so strongly about it, why was it not made A CLEAR REQUIREMENT in 2008 as opposed to something simply released by a Technical Committee?

As to experienced auditors. Its not a question of experience, but of competence. (I am sure we all know of a lot of experienced (and very competent) quality professionals who would make horrific auditors and vice a verse). (Can you imagine Deming as an Auditor working for a modern CB?)

The Competent Auditor would simply get on with the job - they would be totally capable of pointing out and explaining the benefits of any improvements; in such a way that absolutely no controversy would take place. If they could not do this! they would re-consider their stance - maybe their suggestion is not appropriate for the circumstances of the audited Organization.

The competent auditor NEVER has to fall back on the statement -you have to do it because the Standard requires it! That type of statement we leave to the in-competent auditor - especially - when it comes to "value adding" recommendations.

 

[Richard Pike]

There seems to be a basic assumption, by some of the contributors to this thread, that an audit to the standard with all of the normally associated reports is not of value to the audited organization. I get the impression that some auditors feel they must expand on the standard in order to be "adding value". Is it just me?

Nope: its not just you -- its me too.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Please, Jim:
Why wouldn't quality professionals wishing to add value to their client organizations' QMSs recommend an approach that is more sensible and easier for organizations to deal with, an approach formally endorsed by ISO and TC 176?" A separate answer may be appropriate for: consultants, auditors, and CBS.

Please answer the two questions I asked. For convenience, I'll ask them again here:

1. Has the company, by deciding to reclassify existing documentation, voided their implementation of the PA?
2. Will you be able to tell, simply by looking at the reclassified documentation with no further history, whether the PA has been implemented or not?

 

[Jen Kirley]

I just found a comment in a different thread that I think can be useful as a reference for this discussion.

It occurs to me that up to this point we haven't placed much emphasis on understanding exactly what is meant by the element-to-element approach versus the process approach. But ISO 9001 Guy's one comment other thread gives me better insight, even after this thread's 225+ posts.

Let's see if I got it right now: The element-by-element approach is one in which the organization writes its process documents in a way that simply reflects what the Standard says; the documents don't describe the processes themselves really, and make no attempt to show how everything works together to ensure customer satisfaction. "Canned" documentation kits make it so easy to do this - just add the organization's name in the space provided. We in the Cove have warned people against this practice too many times to count.

I once gave an estimate to a defense contractor for writing his Quality Manual. During our conversation it soon became apparent he had no intention of doing what his manual said; it was meant to win the contract and that's all. I quoted him a price he didn't like, and he went on to get help from some college near him.

But if I was an auditor, say from the Government and I compared his operations to his documentation, I would have been able to say practices did not match procedure or the Standard - just list them and give examples of disconnects and gaps. I wouldn't have needed to say he wasn't following the process approach and I was promoting it, though it was true. He probably wouldn't have understood it anyway.

How close did I come to what you have been trying to say, ISO 9001 Guy?

I audit a group that chose to hire a consultant group to set its QMS up. I didn't approve of the approach and I don't like their documentation, but as we move along in the rounds of internal audits I am helping them better understand the process approach and build more personalized, better-fitting documentation. As Document Control Queen I also see their document updates as they come through, so I can see without auditing that their growth continues on its own, which is a very good thing.

I think it's unfortunate that we even need to discuss a question like the original one, because the process approach should be promoted from within the organization, not from without.

 

[Richard Pike]

I think it's unfortunate that we even need to discuss a question like the original one, because the process approach should be promoted from within the organization, not from without.

.

Yep on the button again. ! If you are any good you will simply get the job done! That is what we get paid for. Less talk - more action.

In the interim there will always be people out to make a quick profit! Why should the quality industry be any different? Personally I,m real glad these cowboys are out there! I always charge more to fix the mess that they make "

 

[ISO 9001 Guy]

I humbly suggest you are avoiding answering my question.

This on-line public forum might not be the best medium for me to try to explain some of these concepts to every single person here. I have limited abilities. Sometimes I need to draw pictures to communicate. Know what I mean?

So. Please don't assume that because I choose not to answer a question here that it's because I am skirting the issue. Not that I have all the answers, but just because I choose not to answer one doesn't mean I don't know the answer. See what I mean? (Not to be harsh.)