Poll: Should auditors promote the process approach?

[Randy]

Effective meeting of requirements. The elemental approach is effective in meeting the letter of the requirements, but is not effective at meeting the intention of the standard. In aligning perfectly with a standard, procedures fail to align perfectly with an organization's own processes. The distinction between meeting the letter and meeting the intent should not be dismissed when discussing effectiveness.

Please see the attached articles regarding the process approach. (I wrote them myself years ago.)

Yeah, cool, but you know what? As an auditor it doesn't matter what I want because when it does I have lost my objectivity & impatiality

 

[Big Jim]

So, when you run across an organization that has based its procedures on the elements of the standard--Product Identification or Product Identification and Traceability, Inspection and Test, Inspection and Test Status, Customer Property, Contract Review, Preservation of Product or Handling, Storage, Packaging, Preservation and Delivery--do you suggest to that auditee organization that "adopting the process approach" represents an opportunity for improvement and direct the organization to good information about the process approach?

I haven't run into one recently. I would need to see the entire package, not some "what if" to make the call.

When I see things that they could improve toward the process approach do I tell them? You bet. Even if it would not fall into a nonconformance it would certainly be an appropriate observation.

 

[Big Jim]

Yeah, cool, but you know what? As an auditor it doesn't matter what I want because when it does I have lost my objectivity & impatiality

Absolutely.

As auditors we need to respond to the hand that we are dealt.

And I need to leave to pack for the week.

 

[ISO 9001 Guy]

Randy, I agree that what you want as an auditor is irrelevant. As a quality professional, you should have your clients' best interests in mind. Right?

 

[JaneB]

Auditors should promote the effective meeting of requirements, the fulfillment of commitments made in the policy and the achievement of quality objectives....that's it.

But I think a good point is being made about the process approach.

So, in response to this question below, would your answer be that while the procedures might be based on the elements of the Standard, you'd expect to be able to see that they know their processes during your audit of the various requirements? And do you not make any suggestions to them at all along the lines suggested??

So, when you run across an organization that has based its procedures on the elements of the standard--Product Identification or Product Identification and Traceability, Inspection and Test, Inspection and Test Status, Customer Property, Contract Review, Preservation of Product or Handling, Storage, Packaging, Preservation and Delivery--do you suggest to that auditee organization that "adopting the process approach" represents an opportunity for improvement and direct the organization to good information about the process approach?

Interesting topic Dan & good discussion - thanks for starting it.

 

[ISO 9001 Guy]

So, it sounds like a yes vote from you then?

 

[JaneB]

So, it sounds like a yes vote from you then?

I'm certainly in favour of the process approach being used and applied by both auditor and auditee organisation - I find it very hard to understand how one would have an effective system without it or be fully meeting the requirements. (Indeed I uttered a great cheer when the 2000 version adopted it, having previously had to tie myself & clients almost in knots trying to contort primary service and project-based organisations into meeting a standard written in terms of seeing the world only through manufacturing eyes.)

But the wording of the poll has held me off voting, particularly the use of the word "promote". The poll wording is subject to too much interpretation for me to vote on it. (I empathise with the difficulty, however, of attempting to think up wording which a whole community of quality professionals will accept! THink of the poor Standards-writers then)

 

[ISO 9001 Guy]

Jane, did you see this part of the thread?:
Let's assume by "promote," I mean nothing more than what is stated in the APG guidance, e.g.,

• "The auditor should refer the auditee to recognized information sources, such as those indicated in the section above. (In particular, the referenced ISO/TC 176/SC 2/N544 document sets out different steps in the process approach and provides useful guidance with examples)." and
• ". . . an auditor should (in the 1st stage audit) propose that the auditee performs a redefinition of its processes . . ."

It seems the guidance is saying that auditors should refer auditees to official information sources regarding the process approach--this is promoting the process approach. The guidance says that auditors should actually PROPOSE process redefinition if the process approach has not been used. This also is clear promotion of the process approach, IMO.

Is that adequate? Rather than "promote," what if we replaced the bulleted language from the guidance itself to indicate the scope and nature of "promote"?

 

[ISO 9001 Guy]

I couldn't fit the whole following question into the "poll question" box. Is it specific enough? It avoids using the word "promote."

If an organization has not adopted the process approach, is it appropriate and proper for a third-party (registrar) auditor to formally identify "adopting the process approach" as an opportunity for improvement?

 

[Stijloor]

I couldn't fit the whole following question into the "poll question" box. Is it specific enough? It avoids using the word "promote."

If an organization has not adopted the process approach, is it appropriate and proper for a third-party (registrar) auditor to formally identify "adopting the process approach" as an opportunity for improvement?

If the motivation to adapt the process approach is not intrinsic, the auditor can promote all s/he wants (extrinsic), it ain't gonna work.

Stijloor.