I
I agree to some point. Analogous to management commitment. If management isn't committed to systemic quality management, and instead certification is the primary goal, it ain't gonna work for quality. The problem is, management in most companies IS committed to quality. Successful organizations were managing quality for years before ISO came along. Then for decades, an approach was widely promoted that is focused on ISO certification--using an elemental approach--rather than on assuring quality, and using the natural process approach. It was this extrinsic force that urged organizations to obscure their processes with standard-based procedures in the first place, rather than using procedures to make their processes clear.
To this point, here is another excerpt from bona fide ISO/IAF guidance: www.iso.org/tc176/ISO9001AuditingPracticesGroup . This particular gem came from the ISO 9001 Auditing Practices Group Guidance on: Identification of processes [5 June 2009].
"4. The auditee/auditor considers that each clause or sub-clause of ISO 9001
must be defined as a separate process
If the auditor considers this as the right approach, he should refer to relevant ISO documents, (notably the ISO/TC 176/SC 2 document N544 ISO 9000 Introduction and Support Package: Guidance on the Concept and Use of the Process Approach) which clearly indicates the contrary.
If the auditee considers this as the right approach, it is recommended that the techniques outlined in section 2 (above) should be used."
Then, from section 2:
"2. A process has defined objective(s), input(s), output(s), activities, and resources
If the auditee does not understand that a process must have defined (but not necessarily measurable) objective(s), input(s), output(s), activities, and resources, the auditor should try reformulating the questions to the auditee avoiding the use of QM jargon, e.g. Can you explain to me your operations here? What are the basic jobs carried out in your department? What information do you need to start your work? Where does it come from? Who receives the result of your work? How do you know if you’ve done your job correctly? etc..
This should help the auditor to establish whether the processes (as per ISO 9001) are already defined, have clear inputs, outputs, objectives and so on."
This guidance suggests that if an auditee uses a standard-based approach, it IS the auditors job to help auditees understand their processes AS processes. Is it the auditor's JOB to add value in this manner? According to the guidance, yes. If the registrar for whom an auditor works promises value, then yes again.
Surely if management is unaware of the more sensible alternative the process approach represents, they ain't gonna adopt it. If they have allowed the standard to determine their own realization processes, they are doing it wrong and they often don't know it. I would find it hard to remain committed to such a system, too--but that doesn't mean that I am not committed to quality and to satisfying customers.
I happen to agree with the guidance that it IS an auditor's job to point this out.
If I were paying an auditor to come into my organization and--among other things--identify opportunities for improvement, and these auditors (for years?) failed to point out that I was doing it wrong and unhappily wasting effort to demonstrate conformity, I would not feel as though I was getting value from what I was paying for, would you?
To this point, here is another excerpt from bona fide ISO/IAF guidance: www.iso.org/tc176/ISO9001AuditingPracticesGroup . This particular gem came from the ISO 9001 Auditing Practices Group Guidance on: Identification of processes [5 June 2009].
"4. The auditee/auditor considers that each clause or sub-clause of ISO 9001
must be defined as a separate process
If the auditor considers this as the right approach, he should refer to relevant ISO documents, (notably the ISO/TC 176/SC 2 document N544 ISO 9000 Introduction and Support Package: Guidance on the Concept and Use of the Process Approach) which clearly indicates the contrary.
If the auditee considers this as the right approach, it is recommended that the techniques outlined in section 2 (above) should be used."
Then, from section 2:
"2. A process has defined objective(s), input(s), output(s), activities, and resources
If the auditee does not understand that a process must have defined (but not necessarily measurable) objective(s), input(s), output(s), activities, and resources, the auditor should try reformulating the questions to the auditee avoiding the use of QM jargon, e.g. Can you explain to me your operations here? What are the basic jobs carried out in your department? What information do you need to start your work? Where does it come from? Who receives the result of your work? How do you know if you’ve done your job correctly? etc..
This should help the auditor to establish whether the processes (as per ISO 9001) are already defined, have clear inputs, outputs, objectives and so on."
This guidance suggests that if an auditee uses a standard-based approach, it IS the auditors job to help auditees understand their processes AS processes. Is it the auditor's JOB to add value in this manner? According to the guidance, yes. If the registrar for whom an auditor works promises value, then yes again.
Surely if management is unaware of the more sensible alternative the process approach represents, they ain't gonna adopt it. If they have allowed the standard to determine their own realization processes, they are doing it wrong and they often don't know it. I would find it hard to remain committed to such a system, too--but that doesn't mean that I am not committed to quality and to satisfying customers.
I happen to agree with the guidance that it IS an auditor's job to point this out.
If I were paying an auditor to come into my organization and--among other things--identify opportunities for improvement, and these auditors (for years?) failed to point out that I was doing it wrong and unhappily wasting effort to demonstrate conformity, I would not feel as though I was getting value from what I was paying for, would you?
