Top Management and Competence, Awareness, Training

[Richard Pike]

And when he attempted to argue the need for ----------- I quoted the relevant sections from the Standard to him. Demonstrated skills, experience and education were more than adequate.

He stopped asking.

As well he should.

A better auditor wouldn't have even asked in the first place.

Dare i say ? "and had he/she had an Auditee who did not have your expertise - then he/she would have gotten away with an "incompetent" question".

My personal interpretation - is that there is no such thing as a "Incompetent Auditor" only "Incompetent Management Rep's".

If the Auditor knows more about what your QMS is supposed to accomplish - than you do - then that demonstrates "incompetence - does it not?

I believe it is rare that Auditors will challenge Management Reps who genuinely understand their QMS, and are clearly able to demonstrate its effectiveness. (and PLEASE - that IS what the Man Reps get paid for!!)

Yes, yes, we all hear the excuses, my Management are not on board , our employees don't buy in, we don't have the resources, the ozone layer is thinning; but when shove comes to push -- if an Auditor gets away with murder - it is because the Man Rep knows less about their QMS than does the Auditor.

If they knew "more" then they would be able to adequately explain to the Auditor why their interpretation was incorrect. i.e This is what we do and this is why it is effective in meeting the requirements.

I have read thro numerous complaints in this forum about Auditors. The vast majority comes from Man Reps who --have been forced into the position, organizations who admit their management is not "on board", Man Reps who admit they lack experiance - and then cry about Auditors!!!

A final point! (before I undoubtedly get shot down in horrific flames and get sent direct to hell) Financial Auditors don't get this problem! Why? because the Financial Officers of the organization - know what they are doing!!

 

[JaneB]

there is no such thing as a "Incompetent Auditor" only "Incompetent Management Rep's".

:mg: Really? Would that were true, but I disagree. Strongly, I'm afraid. I've come across more than a few. I don't accept your statement.

If the Auditor knows more about what your QMS is supposed to accomplish - than you do - then that demonstrates "incompetence - does it not?

Not in my book. I'm expecting any external auditor to audit against the relevant Standard. Yes, of course internal people will know more about their system than an external auditor. Of course. But I don't call that 'incompetence' in an auditor. Lack of knowledge of the individual system they're auditing? Sure - but that goes with the territory of external auditing. What isn't up for dispute is that a fundamental requirement for an auditor is knowledge of the Standard and its various requirements.

I believe it is rare that Auditors will challenge Management Reps who genuinely understand their QMS, and are clearly able to demonstrate its effectiveness. (and PLEASE - that IS what the Man Reps get paid for!!)

Again, wish that were true. It requires an open mind and a willingness to really look at the system (vs 'what I'm accustomed to seeing'). Also, for me the best systems are those where the knowledge is distributed among many people, not solely reposited in a single 'Management Rep'.

when shove comes to push -- if an Auditor gets away with murder - it is because the Man Rep knows less about their QMS than does the Auditor.

?? Really - just one sole, single root cause, huh? I disagree. It can come about from a whole range of reasons, including ignorance of the fact that they can dispute with an auditor, worry that it would affect their chances of certification/recertification, established habit/pattern, etc etc.

If they knew "more" then they would be able to adequately explain to the Auditor why their interpretation was incorrect. i.e This is what we do and this is why it is effective in meeting the requirements.

Which requires not just understanding their QMS but also a really good knowledge of the Standard AND the experience/knowledge/background of the 'auditing system' as a whole, which enables one to argue back - ahem, I mean have a lively debate - with an auditor. As well as the avenues to take if the auditor is still unreasonable and does the 'my way or the highway' thing. It does happen.

Yes, I've complained about auditors on occasion - but I'm an equal opportunity complainers, I'll complain about Management Reps and QMs etc as well

And I also very frequently praise/make positive comments about good auditors, the competent ones, the ones who are a pleasure to watch at work. I may not always agree with them, and sometimes I've lost a debate (but added to my knowledge and experience). I've learned so many, many things from the good auditors I've observed. And I'd always much, much, much rather learn what to do by positive demonstration/example than what not to do by negative.

 

[JaneB]

Only the internal auditors (and management rep) are required to know the requirements of ISO 9001. Top management is not. Neither are the employees generally required to know ISO 9001. They all are required to know their system for determining and fulfilling requirements.

Top management are meant to be competent in consistently showing their commitment to requirements from customers, regulators, employees, shareholders and their management system.

This comes from providing the resources (think>speak>action>follow-up)

They should be able to explain to the employees how their system works and how it helps the employees do good work. They should be able to explain the obligations and benefits of their system instead of leaving this to the System Manager or worse - the consultant.

Yes, indeedy. This consultant for one much prefers it when the client/s do do all the talking. Then, I know my job is done and done effectively and its' really their system.

 

[samsung]

Hence I tend to believe that Top management has to be abreast with the related global regulatory requirements and changes and in effect within the quality management system the established procedure of maintaining records per 6.2.2 e) is applicable to all personnel TOP to BOTTOM where applicable.

Still I tend to disagree with the above reasoning. There are processes within the QMS and the relevant process owners are assigned with certain responsibilities by the Top management. One of the processes is to track the 'changes' and another is to 'accommodate' those 'changes' within the system based on their applicability whatsoever. In this series, there's also a process that makes the TM 'abreast with the changes' and someone is there to do this job. Indeed, the organizations, do maintain such information/ communication systems as an integral part of their business even if they haven't adopted a formal management system. e.g. communication of daily updates of the news items (of organization's interest) published in local or regional newspapers (newspaper clipping system) is practiced by almost every organization.

If the TM is being regularly informed of the changes (that could affect the QMS), and there are evidences that the QMS is well supporting the organization in it's pursuit for achieving the objectives, I don't see any reason(s) why a sensible auditor should be asking for the training records of the TM, simply to verify if he's equipped with all the necessary information/ awareness/ training / competence to run his business effectively.

 

[Richard Pike]

Yes, I've complained about auditors on occasion - but I'm an equal opportunity complainers, I'll complain about Management Reps and QMs etc as well

As I said - I knew I would get hung drawn and quartered for that post !

I agree with all your comments - taken in the context you interpreted. :truce:

However; I still maintain that too many Management Reps are simply under qualified (competent - whatever) and this makes the situation so much worse.

Would anybody care to suggest any other profession where competence (of either Auditors or Man Reps) is so consistently challenged?

(Lets leave out the _ankers that are supposed to have contributed to the recession.)

And to the Reps of our Clients and to the CBs we occasionally contract to - you are all exceptions to the above suggestion and are all absolutely brilliant!

 

[JaneB]

There are processes within the QMS and the relevant process owners are assigned with certain responsibilities by the Top management.

Yes exactly. Top management needs to ensure that people are given the right responsibilities and authorities, and that things are done as they're supposed to do. Ensure it. They don't have to do it themselves, nor know everything their people do. That's why they hire people with the required competencies, and ensure they do what's required.

If the TM is being regularly informed of the changes (that could affect the QMS), and there are evidences that the QMS is well supporting the organization in its pursuit for achieving the objectives, I don't see any reason(s) why a sensible auditor should be asking for the training records of the TM, simply to verify if he's equipped with all the necessary information/ awareness/ training / competence to run his business effectively.

Me either. (But we are both assuming a sensible auditor of course.)

Good reasoning.