So we had our external ISO 9001 audit last week, and our auditor had some MAJOR comments on how I run our internal audit programm - he spent over 2 hrs explaining how I was doing it all wrong. He was very nice about his comments but left me with a headache…
Then he proceeded to not even comment on this during the closing meeting, I assume b/c I did meet the requirements of the std after all.
His main comment was that my audit report was too complex - for each area audited, I listed on the report all relevant elements and commented on how these were met by the auditee. Of course the more relevant elements to the auditee had much more substance than the 'generic' elements that apply to all areas (ie for Purchasing I had lots more comemnts on 7.4 than on 4.2.3).
I listed in my report a summary of all the records I reviewed, as well as any concerns and corrective actions identified during the audit.
His view was that instead of this detailed report, that I just needed my handwritten notes as evidence, and my audit report should just consist of a summary paragraph or two of the findings - ie looked at xyz process, xyz process looks good (or not), corrective actions identified, etc.
What confuses me is that I've had other auditors praise how I run my audits, then this one just hammered me. Who's right?
Then he proceeded to not even comment on this during the closing meeting, I assume b/c I did meet the requirements of the std after all.
His main comment was that my audit report was too complex - for each area audited, I listed on the report all relevant elements and commented on how these were met by the auditee. Of course the more relevant elements to the auditee had much more substance than the 'generic' elements that apply to all areas (ie for Purchasing I had lots more comemnts on 7.4 than on 4.2.3).
I listed in my report a summary of all the records I reviewed, as well as any concerns and corrective actions identified during the audit.
His view was that instead of this detailed report, that I just needed my handwritten notes as evidence, and my audit report should just consist of a summary paragraph or two of the findings - ie looked at xyz process, xyz process looks good (or not), corrective actions identified, etc.
What confuses me is that I've had other auditors praise how I run my audits, then this one just hammered me. Who's right?


