Poll: Should auditors promote the process approach?

[ISO 9001 Guy]

The broader question is this: should registrar auditors be champions of ISO 9001 and promote the process approach? However, this is not the poll question.

Please, before answering the poll question below, take a minute to read the very brief guidance from the ISO/IAF ISO 9001 Auditing Practices Group Guidance on: Understanding the process approach. A copy is attached (it's just over one page). This guidance references a TC176 guidance document, also attached: ISO/TC 176 2/N 544R3, ISO 9000 Introduction and Support Package: Guidance on the Concept and Use of the Process Approach for management systems. (Twelve pages.)

The APG guidance, dated 5 June 2009, is broken into two parts: "Helping an auditor to interpret the process approach," and "Helping an auditee to interpret the process approach."

It appears from the APG guidance that if the process approach has not been used--and it's generally easy to tell by glancing at the documentation--this should be identified by auditors during the 1st stage audit. It seems to say that auditors should urge auditees to the referenced N544 document in an effort to provide education regarding the process approach. It seems to further suggest that auditors should--during the 1st stage audit--PROPOSE that auditees redefine processes if the process approach has not been employed.

So, here is the poll question--yes or no:

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?

Thanks!

 

[ISO 9001 Guy]

This is my first new thread and my first poll. Thanks in advance for your participation. The broader question is this: should registrar auditors be champions of ISO 9001 and promote the process approach?

Please, before answering the poll question, take a minute to read the very brief guidance from the ISO/IAF ISO 9001 Auditing Practices Group Guidance on: Understanding the process approach. http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livel...ssApproach.doc?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=3554122A copy is attached (it's just over one page).

This guidance references a TC176 guidance document: ISO/TC 176 2/N 544R3, ISO 9000 Introduction and Support Package: Guidance on the Concept and Use of the Process Approach for management systems. (Twelve pages.) http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...if6I8J&usg=AFQjCNEA0ZU3HBa8yjG2K6QLpOBi8tSE_w

Sorry about the nasty links. Help?

The APG guidance, dated 5 June 2009, is broken into two parts: "Helping an auditor to interpret the process approach," and "Helping an auditee to interpret the process approach."

It appears from the APG guidance that if the process approach has not been used--and it's generally easy to tell by glancing at the documentation--this should be identified by auditors during the 1st stage audit. It seems to say that auditors should urge auditees to the referenced N544 document in an effort to provide education regarding the process approach. It seems to further suggest that auditors should--during the 1st stage audit--PROPOSE that auditees redefine processes if the process approach has not been employed.

Now, for the poll question:

Is it appropriate and proper for third-party auditors to identify "adopting the process approach" as an opportunity for improvement to organizations that have not adopted the process approach?

 

[Julius]

Re: Should auditors promote the process approach?

Yes, Lead Auditors should promote and explain the Process Approach during Stage 1, if the client has not done that. It is logical and once the client understands that, he should support that also.
A follow-on question should be asked: "What does the Lead Auditor do if the client does not accept the process approach?" Does he/she write a "Major" or a "Minor" Nonconformity?
Julius

 

[Stijloor]

Re: Should auditors promote the process approach?

Yes, Lead Auditors should promote and explain the Process Approach during Stage 1, if the client has not done that. It is logical and once the client understands that, he should support that also.
A follow-on question should be asked: "What does the Lead Auditor do if the client does not accept the process approach?" Does he/she write a "Major" or a "Minor" Nonconformity?
Julius

While the "Process Approach" makes a lot of sense, it is a recommendation and not a requirement. If an organization decides to audit based on the clause-by-clause approach, that is their choice. If the process approach is not well understood or not well implemented, it may be a better choice for such an organization.

Stijloor.

 

[ISO 9001 Guy]

Re: Should auditors promote the process approach?

The guidance is to urge auditors to promote the process approach to organizations not using the process approach, isn't it, rather than for auditors to use the process approach to audit?

 

[Stijloor]

Re: Should auditors promote the process approach?

The guidance is to urge auditors to promote the process approach to organizations not using the process approach, isn't it, rather than for auditors to use the process approach to audit?

A good question for our highly respected Cove Members who represent Registrars/Certification Bodies.

Stijloor.

 

[ISO 9001 Guy]

Re: Should auditors promote the process approach?

A good question for our highly respected Cove Members who represent Registrars/Certification Bodies.

Stijloor.

I agree. (Just FYI, I represent a registrar, though my opinions may not always reflect those of my employer.)

Why wouldn't a registrar 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?

 

[Stijloor]

Re: Should auditors promote the process approach?

I agree. (Just FYI, I represent a registrar, though my opinions may not always reflect those of my employer.)

Why wouldn't a registrar 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?

Have you read the threads/posts regarding "Registrars/Auditors adding value?"
Great stuff! Emotional responses too! Do a search and look them.

OK, an advanced search on "Adding Value" revealed these threads.

Have fun my friend.

Stijloor.

 

[ISO 9001 Guy]

Re: Should auditors promote the process approach?

Thanks, Stijloor, I checked them out. Interesting indeed.
So, do you have a vote?

 

[Stijloor]

Re: Should auditors promote the process approach?

Thanks, Stijloor, I checked them out. Interesting indeed.
So, do you have a vote?

I do not think it's the auditor's responsibility to promote the process approach. They should stick to what they are hired to do and that is audit in accordance to what they contractually agreed to do and if they personally use the process approach to do it, I am all for it. But here is my concern: when the auditor starts "promoting" (verbal or in writing) some beneficial approach or method, many companies will likely oblige because it's "what the auditor wants", not because it's in their best interest. There are many discussions here in The Cove about what auditors "suggested" and were sadly interpreted as a requirement. See what I mean?

Stijloor.