Registrar Audit Frequency - Pros and Cons of a 1 year vs a 6 month frequency

[RosieA]

My Registrar offers a 6 month and a 1 year audit frequency.

I would be interested in knowing the pros and cons of doing a 1 year vs a 6 month frequency. This is a new job for me and the first time I've had the 1 year frequency.

Thanks!

 

[db]

My Registrar offers a 6 month and a 1 year audit frequency.

I would be interested in knowing the pros and cons of doing a 1 year vs a 6 month frequency. This is a new job for me and the first time I've had the 1 year frequency.

Thanks!

To my understanding, registrars can no longer use the "every six month equal one complete audit" anymore. Organizations must go through a complete assessment every three years. With some organizations, performing yearly assessments instead of six months assessments, will be less costly. Yearly auditing, however runs a risk. If you are slowing moving away from your QMS, yearly auditing might not discover it until you are way off the mark.

Remember that the third-party auditors really just verify what your internal auditors are finding. I think internal auditing needs to be done a lot more frequently than once a year.

 

[tomvehoski]

I agree with db that annual audits do risk letting your system slip too far too long where you can get in trouble on later audits. Most registrars prefer to do audits every six months. The only exception is small companies that only require one audit day per year - they normally don't like only 1/2 day audits since it is tough to bill out the auditor the other 1/2 day.

If you require 2 or more days per year, go for the six month option.

 

[RosieA]

I agree...A 6 month frequency is my preference as well, however, I may have trouble selling that here. It does look like the costs are less doing it once a year and cost IS likely to be the driver for management here.

Before I launch into this, however, I want to be sure there aren't some hidden benefits to the company with doing the yearly route besides cost.

If there isn't any other benefit, then I will need to cost justify the additional expense for the 6 month surveilances.

I think, from my records review, that the three year reassessment cost is almost twice what it would be if I were doing surveillances every 6 months.

Is that true for others doing the yearly surveillances?

 

[db]

I think, from my records review, that the three year reassessment cost is almost twice what it would be if I were doing surveillances every 6 months.

Is that true for others doing the yearly surveillances?

You might be looking at misleading numbers. I could be wrong here, but I think this is correct. If you are looking at historical numbers, they may include the old method of using 6 month assessements as a way to meet the three year rule. Now that you still have to have a re-assessment audit every three years, there should not be any cost advantage on the re-assessement. It should be identical regardless of which way you go.

 

[Aaron Lupo]

As was mentioned already cost is one of the big benefits of once every 12 months rather thean every 6 months. If you want to keep the costs down, see if your registrar has an auditor that is local, that would eliminate travel and lodging.

One other thing you want to be careful of if you do decide on once every 12 months is that if you need to delay for some reason and you go past the 12 months are risk losing your certificate or at the very least having your Registrar require additional time on-site due to the fact you went past the annual schedule. Just a thought see if your registrar would be willing to come every 9 months.

 

[howste]

Like ISO GUY implied, the increased costs should only be because of travel expenses. If they are adding some other administrative costs in there, feel free to question them. Also, the local auditor approach is good. I audit for a couple of registrars, and most of the audits I do are completely free of travel expenses. I've also heard of registrars doing the 9-month schedule, which may be a compromise.

The pros and cons I can think of have already been covered by db, ISO GUY, and Tom...

 

[C Emmons]

To my understanding, registrars can no longer use the "every six month equal one complete audit" anymore. Organizations must go through a complete assessment every three years. With some organizations, performing yearly assessments instead of six months assessments, will be less costly. Yearly auditing, however runs a risk. If you are slowing moving away from your QMS, yearly auditing might not discover it until you are way off the mark.

Remember that the third-party auditors really just verify what your internal auditors are finding. I think internal auditing needs to be done a lot more frequently than once a year.

I received a letter from our Registrar regarding the complete re assessment every three years and contacted them for clarification. Here is what they told me:

The IFA guidelines are saying that in the last year (SA# 5 and 6#) the total amount of man days added together must equal 2/3 of the time required for a registration audit. In one years time the conduct 12 surveillance days per year (6 sites 1 day each ever six month) So we are more then covered for the re assessment requirement.

As far as the benefit of every six months, forces my system to keep things moving and doesnt allow enough time to completely drop the ball!

 

[db]

...
The IFA guidelines are saying that in the last year (SA# 5 and 6#) the total amount of man days added together must equal 2/3 of the time required for a registration audit. In one years time the conduct 12 surveillance days per year (6 sites 1 day each ever six month) So we are more then covered for the re assessment requirement....

I am not a registrar, nor do I play one on TV (take-off from an old commercial). This is news to me, and I find it interesting.

"As far as the benefit of every six months, forces my system to keep things moving and doesnt allow enough time to completely drop the ball! "

Idealy "dropping the ball" should not be an issue. But, just like a diet, or any other thing, the ball will have a tendency to get dropped. Probably the best case for six month intervals. But, I wonder about the nine month.....?

 

[CarolX]

The IFA guidelines are saying that in the last year (SA# 5 and 6#) the total amount of man days added together must equal 2/3 of the time required for a registration audit. In one years time the conduct 12 surveillance days per year (6 sites 1 day each ever six month) So we are more then covered for the re assessment requirement.

C-
Just curious...who is the IFA?

Thanks,
CarolX