Procedures back to Rev. 1 because of ISO 9001:2008 audit?

[somashekar]

Re: back to Rev. 1 post 2008 audit?

I will say every registrar has at least one 'quirky' auditor, so a change of auditor may be the answer. I'd never condemn a registrar based upon the experience with one auditor.

Hii Marc, I am sorry. I was wondering about the selection criteria of auditors by the various registrars. Perhaps some feedback about auditor performance is generated from client survey that each body undertakes ..........

 

[Jeff Frost]

Re: back to Rev. 1 post 2008 audit?

I sometimes wonder the logic of some auditors related to requirements. Having gone through two revisions of the ISO 9001 standard plus adding AS9100 on top of ISO 9001 there is no logic or requirement to do this.

The only thing that you may need to do is to revise (up Rev.) your documentation to remove any references to 2000 revision of the standard and change it to 2008.

 

[AndyN]

Re: back to Rev. 1 post 2008 audit?

The only thing that you may need to do is to revise (up Rev.) your documentation to remove any references to 2000 revision of the standard and change it to 2008.

......or leave out the dang references.........???

 

[ggdjr]

Re: back to Rev. 1 post 2008 audit?

I have NEVER heard of such a thing before, nonconformance or not. I would have some serious doubts about your auditor.

he did give an NCR because, when we changed names, i amended the whole manual for the name change and did not go to Rev 1 in that instance either.

he said 'new company..new manual'.......sheesh

 

[Ted Schmitt]

Re: back to Rev. 1 post 2008 audit?

he did give an NCR because, when we changed names, i amended the whole manual for the name change and did not go to Rev 1 in that instance either.

he said 'new company..new manual'.......sheesh

I would disagree with him.... if the company changed names, why do you need to go to rev 1 ?? My first page of our manual has a very brief history of our corporation, I would include the name change their.... I see no need for reverting to a new manual with Rev 1.

 

[Laura M]

Re: back to Rev. 1 post 2008 audit?

he did give an NCR because, when we changed names, i amended the whole manual for the name change and did not go to Rev 1 in that instance either.

he said 'new company..new manual'.......sheesh

Nope - not a N/C. I usually have a revision history in the appendix. If this referenced, example Rev B - company name change. That's fine.

I hope his other N/C's had more substance than that. I would also question with his headquarters if they consider that a N/C. I have no problem calling it an observation, if this is a document you may share with customers, to avoid confusion, but not a N/C.

 

[AndyN]

Re: back to Rev. 1 post 2008 audit?

he did give an NCR because, when we changed names, i amended the whole manual for the name change and did not go to Rev 1 in that instance either.

he said 'new company..new manual'.......sheesh

You know, you could take the revision off the documents! Not that you would, and especially not to avoid such issues with these goofy audit 'findings'. But it does make an opportunity for a rethink about what makes effective document control........

I now have a further joke for my 'ISO Funny" joke book! I must be getting near to publication, there are so many..........

 

[Randy]

Hey here's where you can have fun..........Start all of your revisions at #10. When asked just say that you did so because 10 is your favorite number..........Then see how the guy responds

Or don't even use the word revision, use change, generation, improvement, or some other word.........That'll probably cause a purple face

 

[JaneB]

Hey here's where you can have fun..........Start all of your revisions at #10. When asked just say that you did so because 10 is your favorite number..........Then see how the guy responds:lol

Yup, I've done that with a client when I inherited and cleaned up a somewhat messy system. Arbitrarily started numbering from #13. New auditor asked why - I told him it was my favourite number, and he was fine with that

Seriously, it does sound as though your current auditor has some rather auditosaurus ideas about doc control and a somewhat anal attitude. Is he actually adding any real value, or just pulling you up on these rather silly little things?

If the latter, I'd consider asking for a change of auditor - if you don't want to say why (although I would), you could say you'd just like a change and a different set of eyes. A different auditor should help you guage whether it's just him or the CB.

 

[howste]

If the latter, I'd consider asking for a change of auditor - if you don't want to say why (although I would), you could say you'd just like a change and a different set of eyes. A different auditor should help you guage whether it's just him or the CB.

Just tell them your auditor said you had to. New system...new auditor.