Re: Should the Registrar write a NC on something that was found during the Internal A
Great post here, Coury, and follows my thought process on this thread.
The Cove seems to be growing at a strong pace each day that passes. For those that may not have ever notice, Marc deals with posts every day (sometimes every hour) about all kinds of stuff about whether someone is selling something, asking a legitimate question, etc. Bottom line: many times it takes a while until you find out.
It is very exciting to be here at this place. When a question is posed, sometimes you don't know what is going on, until you are able to fish for enough information to put the puzzle together. Everyday it seems a question comes along about "I was being audited and they cited xxxxx". As a helpful/experienced audience, most every time the posters go to extract more information before even starting down a path. It could be a good auditor/bad process, bad auditor/OK process, or a combination in between.
Sadly, there are bad auditors out there, and auditees have to deal with them. While you need to cherish and respect the good, you still have to deal with the bad.
In this case, I think the fruits of this scenario should have shown itself. I guess Coury or any other poster for that matter, could be pathologically delusional and make up findings, CAR'S, signatures, and everything else. Sadly I know it goes on. My guts tells me he (and his associates) probably run a pretty good ship; hence the reason he is upset with a bunch of bogus (useless) audit findings.
IMHO, if you are interested in good processes and the organization has already identified opportunities, help them find other opportunities for improvement. If the organization cares about the process, it will show its fruit after a year or so by addressing the previous findings and assuring enacting change to prevent re-occurrence.
Coury, I would take them to task on it. If they have altruistic motive for citing the findings again from the previous audit, I believe they should make those known. Otherwise, they are wasting everyone's time. That's my
, which isn't worth that much
!
I would not hesitate to talk and explain to an Auditor, especially when they are writing Subjective or invalid findings.
The reason that I have chosen to approach the invalid (in my opinion and will have the AS9100 to support my appeals) NC's will be handled through the Appeals process is because there are times when, first I must protect the Organization, and second, this "challenge" would have been non-productive at the closing meeting. I have chosen the "battleground" with the Appeals process.
The day of the closing meeting I went into the President's Office and suggested that we not challenge the findings during the closing meeting, and I would handle it through the Appeals process and that arguing would be non-productive, and he took that suggestion.
One thing that I have learned throughout almost 25 years in this field, and have dealt with many 2nd and 3rd Party Audits...there is a time that sometimes challenging, even though you fell passionate about a certain thing, it is better not to fight on that Battleground at that time and use the system to determine the results. Sometimes, those arguments get you no where, so you use the tools available to you. In this case the Appeals process. I am also very good on reading a personality of an Auditor, which sometimes, not always, I will call the Auditor on the carpet.
I will however, let everyone know, there is nothing wrong with challenging an Auditor if you feel passionate about something, but chose your grounds, carefully.
I did challenge one finding before if was on the Official Report, and won that battle. That was the right time to challenge.
The reason that I have chosen to approach the invalid (in my opinion and will have the AS9100 to support my appeals) NC's will be handled through the Appeals process is because there are times when, first I must protect the Organization, and second, this "challenge" would have been non-productive at the closing meeting. I have chosen the "battleground" with the Appeals process.
The day of the closing meeting I went into the President's Office and suggested that we not challenge the findings during the closing meeting, and I would handle it through the Appeals process and that arguing would be non-productive, and he took that suggestion.
One thing that I have learned throughout almost 25 years in this field, and have dealt with many 2nd and 3rd Party Audits...there is a time that sometimes challenging, even though you fell passionate about a certain thing, it is better not to fight on that Battleground at that time and use the system to determine the results. Sometimes, those arguments get you no where, so you use the tools available to you. In this case the Appeals process. I am also very good on reading a personality of an Auditor, which sometimes, not always, I will call the Auditor on the carpet.
I will however, let everyone know, there is nothing wrong with challenging an Auditor if you feel passionate about something, but chose your grounds, carefully.
I did challenge one finding before if was on the Official Report, and won that battle. That was the right time to challenge.
The Cove seems to be growing at a strong pace each day that passes. For those that may not have ever notice, Marc deals with posts every day (sometimes every hour) about all kinds of stuff about whether someone is selling something, asking a legitimate question, etc. Bottom line: many times it takes a while until you find out.
It is very exciting to be here at this place. When a question is posed, sometimes you don't know what is going on, until you are able to fish for enough information to put the puzzle together. Everyday it seems a question comes along about "I was being audited and they cited xxxxx". As a helpful/experienced audience, most every time the posters go to extract more information before even starting down a path. It could be a good auditor/bad process, bad auditor/OK process, or a combination in between.
Sadly, there are bad auditors out there, and auditees have to deal with them. While you need to cherish and respect the good, you still have to deal with the bad.
In this case, I think the fruits of this scenario should have shown itself. I guess Coury or any other poster for that matter, could be pathologically delusional and make up findings, CAR'S, signatures, and everything else. Sadly I know it goes on. My guts tells me he (and his associates) probably run a pretty good ship; hence the reason he is upset with a bunch of bogus (useless) audit findings.
IMHO, if you are interested in good processes and the organization has already identified opportunities, help them find other opportunities for improvement. If the organization cares about the process, it will show its fruit after a year or so by addressing the previous findings and assuring enacting change to prevent re-occurrence.
Coury, I would take them to task on it. If they have altruistic motive for citing the findings again from the previous audit, I believe they should make those known. Otherwise, they are wasting everyone's time. That's my
, which isn't worth that much
!
I have talked to a good friend and Business Associate that is the President of a Registrar (not the one we used), and I was told that during the last IAQG meeting the week of July 14 (I believe) there was a meeting, that was held and the topic came up about the Soft-grading of NC's the statement was made...