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

[howste]

I suspect the IAF (International Accreditation Forum) is what was meant.

 

[RoxaneB]

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.....?

No kidding about the ball being dropped! At my last job, our sister company in the UK was not audited by their Registrar for nearly 3 years apparently...don't know the whole story, so please don't ask how that happened.

About six months prior to their next audit, management woke up and went "Heyyy.....they're coming and we have nothing." So, they re-developed another QMS just in time for their audit, which also involved some nice suppers for the auditors and several offers of "You scratch our backs, we'll scratch yours" from our top dog...how's that for Management Committment?

However, in my current job, our audits are approximately every 8-9 months. I've now equated a visit from our Registrar with labour.

 

[gpainter]

We currently use a six month surveillance schedule due to our system not being mature. Once we reach a certain level of maturiety we will more than likely give consideration to going yearly. Since we use a local auditor there will be no money savings. Yes, no more certificates with no expiration dates. Most Registrars prefer the 6 month surveillance unless it is a satellite operation with production only.With the standard changing every 5 years, 6 month option is really the best. IMO