Thanks for your explanation, Sam. Hope you didn't lose too much sleep
No furore, just some open & frank debate - what a healthy forum's for. It's a great way to learn (not all one-sided learning either).
Jim's made good points, including that of the cultural difference (which I acknowledge) and re. arguing during the audit...
The attributes of an auditor listed in ISO19011 have already been mentioned. All important, including open-minded -
willing to consider alternative ideas or points of view. I wouldn't respect any auditor who did not display that, or who wasn't
versatile - adjusting readily to different decisions. See them as equally important as tenacious, decisive and self-reliant (among others).
Someone who would never /"almost never" ignore
what the document was called, especially if it had something to do with what the standards said.
wouldn't to me be displaying all of these attributes.
What I outlined is not a theoretical response but one I've applied at times. I take my work as a quality professional seriously - care passionately about 'real' quality, and loathe it when I see anyone - particularly a client! - subjected to something that doesn't match the intent and requirements of the relevant Standard, etc.
And I've had the occasional & fortunately rare encounter with a particularly dogmatic and inflexible auditor who did. At a pre-cert, one refused to accept a particular procedure that covered both corrrective and preventive action, but wasn't called by those terms. Insisted that 1. client
must have 2
separate procedures and 2. each procedure
must be titled as CA and PA.
Balderdash.
And yes, I took it to their tech manager, and yes it was resolved, including a change of auditor. Clients were delighted with the new one. They'd been somewhat fearful of lodging a complaint; could not believe the difference in auditors. New auditor was highly competent, and focussed on
issues that really matter. Where the real risks are and things that are important. Yes, he too knows the Standard inside out and backwards, and no he's certainly no little pushover bunny, no sirree.
But he didn't & doesn't waste time on trivia like that!
So, Sam, yes, do please try getting out of the box a little. Because it's my firm opinion that being overly rigid and dogmatic where it is not only unnecesaary but undesirable is one of the things that gets 'quality' a bad name. There's good times and places for firm and unyielding... arguing that document X must always be titled document X isn't one of them IMO.
I really look forward to many more quality discussions within this cove (not similar ones, I hope not:mg:!), that may help me come out a better quality professional than I am.
Me too. But if you state an opinion, you have to expect to support it. And if someone says, hey,
where precisely in the Standard are you getting that from? you should be able to explain.
But also,
don't worry about finding yourself on the different end of an opinion, either. I'm certainly not going to hold it against anyone if we have a lively exchange of opinions, and I doubt others would. I've had some lively differences of opinion with other senior people in here. At times we've butted heads, argued our points... sometimes agreed to disagree, others conceded or agreed. But we're still debating & talking and still respect each other. That's what professionals do.
At least,
I do, can't speak for Andy & Randy, et al
I don't argue...I simply pop in the Disney Princess CD and ensure "Someday My Prince Will Come" is playing as I roll down the window. 
