Roving Audits - Main functions is to audit the manufacturing process

[Rockanna]

We have roving auditors in our manufacturing process. The roving auditors (who use to be called roving inspectors) main functions is to audit the manufacturing process, beginning with the quality plans, drawings, gages, SPC checks and actually watching the operators perform the operation. All findings from this process are reported as conforming or nonconforming. The roving auditors provide training to the operators when necessary.

Is there anybody out there performing these types of audits in their manufacturing process? If so, do you have any advice or recommendations on perfecting this process?

 

[JRKH]

J.Jean
We do not currently do this as we are a pretty small company, but I like the idea very much. It seems an excellent way to assure compliance throughout the system by concentrating your effort in the critical (read manufacturing) area. I would like to know more about your system. What kinds of problems are you having? Where do you think it can be improved?

James

 

[E Wall]

Shift QA Process Audits

We have a QA Auditor that goes through each mfg process once per shift (random timing) and performs process audits. We keep these records for 3 years.

There is an process audit form for each so no critical characteristic is overlooked. The auditors check to ensure 1st Piece inspections were performed, Current process parameters are within limits(temp/weights/thickness/etc...), they record if process is being run under any deviations, as well as collecting samples for lab analysis.

I'll attach one of the forms used:

 

[KenS]

Rover's Audit

We do something of that nature, conducting a documentation audit and a physical (read inspection) audit during the 2 to 3 month manufacturing period for each tool. While there are specified audit points during the process, the results of which are distributed to management, the roving audits are distributed solely to the work area, no management involvement. This is something I initiated to counter the "who's fault is it" culture of this place. The work area supervisor responds to the auditor, the auditor then follows up to verify. Records are kept which are a good input to the regularly scheduled audits as well as the continuous improvement program.

 

[MrPhish]

RE; Roving Audits

I find this concept interesting. I think a roving type audit has a possible advantage to capture the "proof" that a process is being followed out of habit, instead of as a possible "preparation" because you know the auditor is coming only twice a year and always in June (SeaLawyer note: this does not mean everybody cheats on an audit). Are these roving audits associated with any kind of frequency?, i.e. is there a documented timeline these audits occur? My company works in the services arena and I am thinking towards instituting a type of "often as needed or always on" audit schedule instead of a typical annual or twice annual audit schedule. Planning would be based on current events and proper coverage of all work areas with frequency defined as "as required/appropriate".

Your roving audits sound like they occur more randum than annual or quarterly. In order to comply with the standard you have to have plan your audit with a known frequency. What is the frequency of a roving event? I know if I tell my registrar that I perform audits on an "as needed" basis as the situation dictates he is going to look for a hard and fast time schedule to act as objective evidence that 1) the audit was planned and 2) there is a documented frequency.

I short, I like the roving concept, but what is the best method to document the audit cycle (plan and frequency) to cover the 8.2.2 requirements? Regulars please weigh-in.

 

[E Wall]

Re: Roving Audits

MrPhish said: I short, I like the roving concept, but what is the best method to document the audit cycle (plan and frequency) to cover the 8.2.2 requirements? Regulars please weigh-in.

I think it is (next to) impossible for there to be one hard/fast rule to apply here. If your documents are identified by some means to know what specific requirements they are meeting and are reviewed whenever the process changes, new product is introduced, equipment is phased in/out, or on a schedule basis; you should be able to conform to 8.2.2 because the procedures and product/service would be reviewed.

Someone posted a few months ago that they were revamping their system from doing formal 'internal audits' as most (if not all) of us currently utilize, to requiring periodic review/assessment of their processes by parties involved in it as well as including someone not associated with the process directly (using their current pool of internal auditors). This would meet the requirements for internal auditing without the perceived 'extra work'. The reviews would be 'planned (for frequency) considering the importance of the process and areas being audited', use a requirements checklist for comparison, and be reportable using the corrective action programme and summarily reported during the management review meetings. Thus meeting all the requirements of 8.2.2 while keeping the onus on the individuals associated with the process to ensure they keep any and all documented procedures current. Their compliance manager would oversee (drive) the process to ensure that the reviews are performed and completed in a timely manner.

I have reviewed this proposal with both the plant QA Manager and our Corporate MR and we are looking at how we can best utilize a similar approach. I'll provide feedback if we are still around in the next 6 months to put it into effect! For those that don't already know...the company I work for is in chpt 11 banruptcy and closing our location may be an option being considered.

 

[MrPhish]

Follow-Up

E Wall,

I have been leaning towards the very same concept (had to stop and think if I was the previous post you were referring to) for some time now. Good to know I'm not on Pluto with this concept. I envision the system to be a constant assessment that is part of the individual process, rather than a special event everybody has to prepare for. In this manner the "audit" can become part of the daily routine, instead of a separate event some employees "fear" or stress themselves over. Assessment data can be posted for all to see and think about so when a MR is planned, you can use the data at hand, regardless of the timing (like pulling a bucket of water from a flowing stream).

If available, please provide me a link to that post you referenced as having seen. Thanks.

 

[Rockanna]

Re: RE; Roving Audits

MrPhish said:

I find this concept interesting. I think a roving type audit has a possible advantage to capture the "proof" that a process is being followed out of habit, instead of as a possible "preparation" because you know the auditor is coming only twice a year and always in June (SeaLawyer note: this does not mean everybody cheats on an audit). Are these roving audits associated with any kind of frequency?, i.e. is there a documented timeline these audits occur?

These roving audits are process audits conducted in the manufactuirng area and are not scheduled. The roving auditor selects which part or process they will audit for the day, reviews the documented process first, watches the operator run and check his/her parts with the required gages or SPC checks, provides training when necessary, prepares an audit report of their findings and submit N/C to the responsible Supervisor. This is over and above the internal audit program which audits each Work Instruction at least once a year. Our goal is to continually improve the manufacturing process by selecting a pro-active approach.

My company works in the services arena and I am thinking towards instituting a type of "often as needed or always on" audit schedule instead of a typical annual or twice annual audit schedule. Planning would be based on current events and proper coverage of all work areas with frequency defined as "as required/appropriate".

Your roving audits sound like they occur more randum than annual or quarterly. In order to comply with the standard you have to have plan your audit with a known frequency. What is the frequency of a roving event? I know if I tell my registrar that I perform audits on an "as needed" basis as the situation dictates he is going to look for a hard and fast time schedule to act as objective evidence that 1) the audit was planned and 2) there is a documented frequency.

These audits take place daily - it is there main function as a Roving Auditor (QC Technician). We have one person on first shift and one on second shift. In the future, our company is looking at the possiblity of eliminating quality hold points (checks) and pushing the task to the operator level. We see Roving Audits the next step to process improvements.

Most quality checks in our current process are after many $$$ have been spent producing the part. Roving audits take place in all stages of the process. Something to think about.

I short, I like the roving concept, but what is the best method to document the audit cycle (plan and frequency) to cover the 8.2.2 requirements?

Our company documents processes by this concent, Say what you do, do what you say. No more, no less. We provide records of the inspections, documented electronically, records of the C/A and P/A plans, follow-up audits, etc.

I hope this helps.

 

[Mike S.]

Re: RE; Roving Audits

MrPhish said:

Your roving audits sound like they occur more randum than annual or quarterly. In order to comply with the standard you have to have plan your audit with a known frequency. What is the frequency of a roving event? I know if I tell my registrar that I perform audits on an "as needed" basis as the situation dictates he is going to look for a hard and fast time schedule to act as objective evidence that 1) the audit was planned and 2) there is a documented frequency.

I short, I like the roving concept, but what is the best method to document the audit cycle (plan and frequency) to cover the 8.2.2 requirements? Regulars please weigh-in.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying this, but I'd think you could still quote a "planned interval" and do the roving/random audit by saying you will audit areas A, B, and C at least once every X days/weeks/months and areas D, E, F, etc. at least every Y days/weeks/months, etc.. You could then do it every day if you wanted, and still satisfy the requirement for a "planned interval" by just meeting or exceeding that documented interval. While some registrars/auditors are known for making bonehead calls sometimes, I've yet to hear of one writing up a NC for exceeding the requirements! Am I missing something?

 

[Ted Black]

I like the concept as well however, we are in the service industry (distribution). Do you think audits like this would work for services (picking, shipping) and support functions (purchasing, receiving inspection, sales)?