QMS (Quality Management System) Manual - The Boss Wants a 4 Page Manual - What to Do?

[Sidney Vianna]

What can an org do when they know they are right, but the more they question the auditor he was displaying extreme aggrivation and raising his voice to the point of the org worrying if they are going to get recommended for registration or not.

Not only you can, but you SHOULD escalate this to the Registrar. This is NOT the kind of relationship you want to develop. If you look at the official ISO Interpretations, the documents developed by the ISO advisory group on good audit practices and the ISO 9000:2000 support documents they all support your position.
To give in now, without a fight, just because it is easier to "fix it than fight it, would send the wrong message to the organization, imho.
We know that we have to be selective about the fights we fight, but this one should not take more than a phone call. Obviously, it seems to me that auditor re-assignement is in order for you. Good luck.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

The auditor said, "the only allowable exclusions are in Section 7. By not addressing it in words, you have treated it like an exclusion. There are no elements that you can't address without written words. Do me a favor, just paraphrase the standard and for infrastructure and work environment where is says 'you shall' write 'we do.' While you're at it, reorganize your manual, and number it to meet the standard."

Which proves that he has no idea what he is talking about. That man is definitely unfit for auditing duty. I would put my foot down in this case, because you cannot let the auditor run the place, you already have staff to do that. Particularly not when he is w-r-o-n-g. Besides, who knows what he'll come up with next?

/Claes

 

[Laura M]

If it was my company, I absolutely would. Being the consultant, I can't really take this on without their consent. Wish there was a way. They were so concerned about getting registered. I'm just working on them to push for a different auditor at this point.

 

[Caster]

Yikes

I just had an auditor tell a client that they "had" to have a statement in their quality manual regarding infrastructure and work environment.

The president says - let's take a walk, I'll show you what we do to maintain the facility and machinery.

The auditor said, ".... Do me a favor, just paraphrase the standard and for infrastructure and work environment where is says 'you shall' write 'we do.' While you'r at it, reorganize your manual, and number it to meet the standard."

Keep the President - lose the auditor!

Not many Presidents are operating at that level of understanding.

Sadly, too many auditors are at his level.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Adding value as an auditor

You know, there is an ad-hoc group of people working under the auspices of the TC-176 developing material to assist adequate auditing techniques. The material is available at http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/138402/138403/3541460/customview.html?func=ll&objId=3541460&objAction=browse&sort=name.

One of the documents developed is titled: "How to add value during the audit process" and it is available at http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/3553372/APG-HowtoAddValue.doc?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=3553372 .

One of the litmus tests in order to check if a finding is adding value to the organization, is the question:
"...Will the solution proposed by the organization in response to negative findings be useful? . . ."
I am curious if you were to ask this auditor how much better the organization in question would be, after they revise the manual to include what he wants, what his response would be....

 

[cncmarine]

?????
Is it the auditors job to find out if the "finding" is adding value to the organization ?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

It depends. Some of us do.

Others think that they belong to a special kind of supplier category and don't have to be concerned about adding value to their customer's business.

 

[db]

?????
Is it the auditors job to find out if the "finding" is adding value to the organization ?

One of the things I was taught was to explain the "impact" of the nonconformance to the auditee. This accomplishes two things. First, it shows the auditee that the auditor is not just trying to find things. Secondly, it assists the auditee in determining appropriate resources to apply to the corrective action. If all an auditor is interested in crossed “t”s or dotted “i”s, then showing the impact is quite difficult.

Also, most nonconformances discovered are already known by the auditee. They were just hoping they would not get caught. Explaining the impact might also get the auditees to start thinking along the same line. They might actually begin to fix things when they discover them, and not wait for the audit.

 

[cncmarine]

I agree with you Dave

But we get into this discussion about "the scope" and the difference between consulting and auditing


It’s the auditors job to audit per 19011 and that’s it. This whole concept of “value-added auditing” sounds like marketing ploy.


"Others think that they belong to a special kind of supplier category and don't have to be concerned about adding value to their customer's business."

????? please elaborate...

 

[The Fast One]

How can so much drivel be generated by so many people whilst taking away so much value from what common sense has to offer....but then, if common sense prevailed there wouldn't be any of this nonsense and none of you would have 'Quality' jobs, I wonder if there is a connection.....?