Question on Unannounced Registrar Audits - Plant manager suggested no advance notice

[qkstudy]

Hi- I have to begin by telling you how much I appreciate the cove. It has given me a wealth of information, though sadly I've never yet contributed.

Is this unheard of in the ISO9001 world?
During our last review the plant manager suggested that no advance notice be given for future registrar assessments. I think he's tired of all the preparation that goes on in the weeks and days before the visit. He feels that a truer picture would emerge.

We're a fairly large company (>1200) mature (registered in 1995) and do really well (zero or a couple of minors) each time. We have a strong internal audit system and continual improvement process.

PROS / CONS

 

[dokes]

The fact that there is a lot of additional activity (if I understand your message correctly) indicates that the system isn't really working. Between audits the organization runs one way, and prior to the surveillance audit there's a lot of activity "to make sure everything is right." I often tell clients that if the system is working, no one would care when an audit occurs, since what everyone does on a day-to-day basis is done in accordance with company policies/procedures. Of course this also means that the system must be designed correctly ... not combersome. I would agree with the manager ... don't tell anyone when the registrar will be there next time ... assuming top management is willing to act based on what is found.

Of course if there are serious problems your internal audits should be picking this up.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Interesting concept

Frankly, outside of a few logistical questions, such as having an escort and proper folks to get the feedback when audit is done, I think it's an OK idea. If top management is confident enough to ride it out "bareback," do you think his confidence is misplaced?

I can see cause for concern and anxiety for the first audit, but certainly not for the fifth or tenth audit. I never really understood the flurry of activity that precedes some audits.

Some people scurry around, cleaning house before company arrives for the holidays. My aunt, an immaculate housekeeper, waits until all the company is gone before cleaning up.

How do your internal audits go? Does everyone rush around before each one? Why? or Why not? When you complete the internal audit, do you have a lot of findings?

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Hello qkstudy, and welcome among the posters

During our last review the plant manager suggested that no advance notice be given for future registrar assessments.

What an interesting first post... Why not keep them coming?

As you indicate yourself there are pros and cons to everything, and I get a bit concerned about one of the cons in particular: Would it not make the staff rather resentful towards the plant manager, the registrar and your system? I'm thinking about the pains we have been through to make people realize that auditing is not comparable to police activity...

Perhaps it would be a better idea to put more effort into making the system run as intended between the audits?

/Claes

 

[Bill Pflanz]

There is another alternative. If the plant manager believes there is too much preparation before the registrar, do not allow any abnormal activity and let the chips fall where they may.

If the plant manager is allowing additional audits, more document review and change, more corrective actions etc. then what is normally seen then he should not make the resources available the last few weeks just to catch up. Of course if the reason that you are running around at the last minute is that the plant manager did not free up resources earlier, you could be blamed for a major finding for not working the problem sooner.

Bill Pflanz

 

[Kevin H]

Audit Notice

Qkstudy - I've got to agree with the other folks regarding surveillance audit notices. At the last company I worked for we had a fairly mature system and notice of the upcoming audit would appear about 2 weeks before it was scheduled. Just enough time to insure that departments scheduled would have the proper personnel available. At least in the department I was in, (we called it quality assurance, but it consisted of the various testing labs and inspection), we normaly didn't have a last minute rush to insure we were up to snuff. I also didn't notice it in the departments I dealt with.

My current employer is fairly new, about 5 years old (the parent company is over 200 years old) but we seem to be constantly doing last minute pushes to "get everything ready for the audit". We do a lot of things well, but I think we'd get a clearer picture of areas that need improvement if we didn't do the "get everything ready for the audit dance". Also, possibly get some more support for QA's suggestions for quality system improvements/compliance.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[qkstudy]

Thanks for your thoughts. I guess Claes comes the closest to my reservations with those words of 'resentful' and 'police activity'. I didn't mean to say that we have two ways of running the company, one for day-to-day and the other for when we're being audited. I don't think anyone could do this for long without raising a multitude of red flags. Its more the case, similar to what Wes mentioned, as cleaning house before visitors arrive. Sure there's activity but we're not doing major reconstructing.

I remember how much emphasis the instuctor of my first internal auditing class used in describing the process of auditee notification and 'no surprises'. I can't vision a surprise 3rd party audit as morale building, no matter the results.

Is it just ME?

 

[Craig H.]

I remember how much emphasis the instuctor of my first internal auditing class used in describing the process of auditee notification and 'no surprises'. I can't vision a surprise 3rd party audit as morale building, no matter the results.

Is it just ME?

I have to agree that from a morale standpoint, surprise audits are not a good idea. You may get "clearer" picture, but nonconformances would be seen by the auditees as a "gotcha" instead of a way to improve. People then will, IMO, begin to factor in more of a CYA standpoint when thinking about what they are doing. The more I think about it , the more I think the cons will outweigh the pros, FWIW.

 

[jaimezepeda]

Surprise!! We are here to audit you.

Very good point qkstudy!

I'm not sure how it goes for your external audits qkstudy. At our organization, the registrar sends an audit plan in advance of the audit and it is to be distributed to the auditee (not always the quality group people). There is also the matter of scheduling everyone involved in the opening meeting and such. It has been mentioned already that logistics of the external audit should be considered also. I am not sure you can always have a "surprise" external audit. It seems that ISO auditing guidelines do not encourage this surprise element either.

Jaime

 

[Hershal]

Let me throw in a point here. It is true 9K does not specifically take a position on unannounced audits and is considered bad practice in both the 9K and ISO/IEC 17025 worlds.

There is a different group however, that makes use of the unannounced inspections, that group being the accredited inspection bodies (ISO/IEC 17020) operating in the U.S., and especially the ones who oversee the construction related industries. Those inspections are quarterly.

Generally, I support coordination with the facilities to be audited or assessed. It is better for the facilities and better for the ABs (accrediting bodies) and registrars. Schedules and commitments are often easier to manage with sufficient notice.

qkstudy, your plant manager is correct, a truer picture will come out with a no notice visit, but the first couple of times, expect many more findings than you are used to. Registrars often come in only twice a year, so it can easily take a year or two before everyone is operating with comfort at the unannounced visits.

For a 9K registered or a 17025 accredited facility, I suggest that unannounced is not the better idea. Training on a periodic basis about the applicable requirements, and process engineering to avoid having to do the job then do the "ISO stuff" by accomplishing both at the same time......those two steps would likely be more effective.

Hope this helps.

Hershal