Should the billing process be part of ISO 9001:2008?

[rickbrazil]

I believe Sidney is right. I provide consultancy for a tools retailer. He had many complaints about wrong billing generated by a problem in the bank system and it really caused a sudden reduction in the satisfaction rate...The clients input was that billing is part of the sales process, a vital process for the company in its Management System..imagine in a QMS.

Once Billing is an extension of the product (service) it should be on a checklist and the NC´s registered should generate CA´s on the root cause.

 

[michellemmm]

I don't think it should be audited directly, but it should be on the Internal Auditing schedule. There could be a single audit question looking for it on the IA schedule.

I have a problem with your statement... It is missing the spirit of quality.

IAs should focus on "performance" as well as "Conformance."

The purpose of Internal Audit is to uncover opportunities for improvement. If Billing Process affects the customer satisfaction, why shouldn't the effectiveness of this process be challenged and opportunities for improvement outlined?

IAs are effective when PA>CA.

 

[Jim Wynne]

The purpose of Internal Audit is to uncover opportunities for improvement.

"Opportunities for improvement" is a euphemism meaning "nonconforming conditions," or at best, "anomalies." The purpose of internal auditing is to confirm that the process or system operates as designed.

IAs are effective when PA>CA.

If processes are efficacious, PA and CA won't be necessary. It's not a good thing when auditing results in significant amounts of either.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

"Opportunities for improvement" is a euphemism meaning "nonconforming conditions," or at best, "anomalies." The purpose of internal auditing is to confirm that the process or system operates as designed.


If processes are efficacious, PA and CA won't be necessary. It's not a good thing when auditing results in significant amounts of either.

I disagree Jim. It is a euphenism only if the organization makes it so. If the paradigm the organization follows is only compliance, then OFIs are perhaps unnecessary.

But, ISO systems are to seek continual improvement. Lean Mfg. seeks continual improvement. So does Six Sigma and Baldrige. Mere compliance is not enough. And, in a continual improvement paradigm, auditors should seek CAs, PAs and OFIs. But, let's honestly call a spade a spade. If a CA is discovered, it should be called what it is. That requires support and leadership from upper levels.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I disagree Jim. It is a euphenism only if the organization makes it so. If the paradigm the organization follows is only compliance, then OFIs are perhaps unnecessary.

Everybody should always be on the lookout for opportunities for improvement, if that's the "paradigm." I didn't say that "OFI" is a euphemism per se; my remark was directed at Michellemm's statement that searching for OFI's is the purpose for internal audits. It's not. The purpose is to confirm that the system/process operates as designed. If someone has a great idea for improvement during the course of an audit, so much the better, but those kinds of things should be serendipitous.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Everybody should always be on the lookout for opportunities for improvement, if that's the "paradigm." I didn't say that "OFI" is a euphemism per se; my remark was directed at Michellemm's statement that searching for OFI's is the purpose for internal audits. It's not. The purpose is to confirm that the system/process operates as designed. If someone has a great idea for improvement during the course of an audit, so much the better, but those kinds of things should be serendipitous.

In the Opening Meeting for every audit I lead, I tell clients that there are two purposes for these audits - to verify baseline compliance to the requirements, and to seek areas for improvement.

I think the purpose should always be both, unless it is just a compliance audit.

 

[michellemmm]

In the Opening Meeting for every audit I lead, I tell clients that there are two purposes for these audits - to verify baseline compliance to the requirements, and to seek areas for improvement.

I think the purpose should always be both, unless it is just a compliance audit.

Thanks Helmut.

For IA, I reverse the order of the objectives you outlined. i.e. OFI ad then compliance.

IMHO, if a company is concerned about "conformance", they have a weak QMS...Starting from Management commitment...They have not removed fear and CARs are "shame on you" report...I have always encouraged my management team to perform self assessment to find OFIs and write CAR for their own process. When they do, I celebrate!!!

 

[Helmut Jilling]

...
IMHO, if a company is concerned about "conformance", they have a weak QMS...Starting from Management commitment...They have not removed fear and CARs are "shame on you" report...

Thanks, but I would not go that far. The stated purpose for internal audits (cl. 8.2.2.a) clearly discusses conformity. That has to be part of the internal audit objective. But, (cl 8.2.2.b) seems to move toward allowing for improvement, as does much of the related writings and supporting documents. I don't ever want to take compliance away from the audits. That would give it a whole different tone.

 

[michellemmm]

Thanks, but I would not go that far. The stated purpose for internal audits (cl. 8.2.2.a) clearly discusses conformity. That has to be part of the internal audit objective. But, (cl 8.2.2.b) seems to move toward allowing for improvement, as does much of the related writings and supporting documents. I don't ever want to take compliance away from the audits. That would give it a whole different tone.

I never said to take the compliance away...I reversed the order.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Thanks, but I would not go that far. The stated purpose for internal audits (cl. 8.2.2.a) clearly discusses conformity. That has to be part of the internal audit objective. But, (cl 8.2.2.b) seems to move toward allowing for improvement, as does much of the related writings and supporting documents. I don't ever want to take compliance away from the audits. That would give it a whole different tone.

Indulge me for a moment while I fantasize. Let's say that I'm the CEO of a medium-sized company. I just got through listening to Mike Micklewright, and I'm breathlessly inspired to Do the Right Things. I make sure that processes are carefully designed and proven before being set loose on unsuspecting customers; I preach the Gospel of Continualous Improvement and make everyone sure that I'm serious about it; I encourage and take seriously all suggestions for improvement and I am kind to children and small animals.

I initiate an internal audit process with the express purpose of confirmation of process efficacy. Everyone in the company is charged with continualously improving things--I just need the internal auditors to confirm that everything is working as planned. If, in the course of their audits, they find opportunities, so much the better--after all, they're supposed to be doing that even when they aren't auditing. If that's the case, why do I need to make OFIs a purpose of the audit (let alone the primary purpose)?

Getting back to reality, if the spirit of continuous improvement has really been established, it's absurd and superfluous to ask internal auditors to look for improvement opportunities. It would be like telling them to make sure their hearts keep beating.