C
Howdy, folks:
I'm curious about everyone's opinions regarding a couple of auditing points. These aren't incredible breakthroughs or anything, but they seem to come up quite often. Here they are:
1) A nonconformity doesn't exist without a requirement. The best way to ensure that this isn't forgotten is to insist that auditors (first party second party, and third party) clearly write out nonconformities in a two-part manner: part 1 is the requirement and part 2 is exactly what the auditor found that contradicts the requirement. A one-two punch, so to speak. Asking registrar auditors to write nonconformities this way removes a lot of "invented" discrepancies.
2) Auditors (even internal auditors) should never propose fixes, remedies, or suggestions for corrective action. This short-circuits the problem solving process and encourages laziness. It also takes away the ownership for the corrective action. Even when pressed for ideas, the auditor should defer to the auditee's creativity and knowledge of their process.
So, anyone want to bite on either of these? The 2nd point is the one I expect people have stronger opinions on. For the curious or bored, these notions and others come from an article of mine in last month's QD: http://www.qualitydigest.com/aug03/articles/02_article.shtml. Any feedback on that is appreciated, too.
Have a nice weekend,
Craig
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Craig Cochran
Center for International Standards & Quality
Georgia Institute of Technology
[email protected]
I'm curious about everyone's opinions regarding a couple of auditing points. These aren't incredible breakthroughs or anything, but they seem to come up quite often. Here they are:
1) A nonconformity doesn't exist without a requirement. The best way to ensure that this isn't forgotten is to insist that auditors (first party second party, and third party) clearly write out nonconformities in a two-part manner: part 1 is the requirement and part 2 is exactly what the auditor found that contradicts the requirement. A one-two punch, so to speak. Asking registrar auditors to write nonconformities this way removes a lot of "invented" discrepancies.
2) Auditors (even internal auditors) should never propose fixes, remedies, or suggestions for corrective action. This short-circuits the problem solving process and encourages laziness. It also takes away the ownership for the corrective action. Even when pressed for ideas, the auditor should defer to the auditee's creativity and knowledge of their process.
So, anyone want to bite on either of these? The 2nd point is the one I expect people have stronger opinions on. For the curious or bored, these notions and others come from an article of mine in last month's QD: http://www.qualitydigest.com/aug03/articles/02_article.shtml. Any feedback on that is appreciated, too.
Have a nice weekend,
Craig
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Craig Cochran
Center for International Standards & Quality
Georgia Institute of Technology
[email protected]