Unique Document Identification Numbering System

the_joker

Inactive Registered Visitor
#41
I don't get these statements at all! $14K for a 3 day audit? Are you serious?

And I really don't get the statement about registrars doing process audits either! Do you know that CBs don't have to have RAB trained auditors? What's more, some of them have been doing process based audits since certification audits started as you'll know, back in the late 80s!

I'm really dismayed when I read that people have created a system to suit a particular auditor - not the CB - but one auditor who spends just a couple of days looking at your system. Maybe you'd also share with us what your management and personnel think about your system...

Do you, incidentally, do this kind of thing for other suppliers? Take raw materials in the quantities they want to ship, for example, not what you need for production? Take the grade which is cheapest for them to produce, not what you need for effective product? I'm interested why you'd bend over to make it easy for one and not do the same for others...
Yep serious. Add in travel expenses, report fees, prep fees, etc. I should mention that it was aerospace, so that was for a dual certificate (more fees).

As for the rest, as I've now stated twice, if the internal system is set-up so that users don't need the document number to function, then it is easier in my opinion to make the ties back to the standard. This will facilitate a smooth registration audit - which IS in my company's best interests.

As for other suppliers, sure. If they are an important enough source i would work with them to make their life easier as along as it doesn't interfere with our quality, operations, timeline, etc. It's called partnering. Not to mention if they are a sole source supplier in which case yes, I'll take whatever they want to give me. In government work for aerospace if they say that you must buy widgets from company A, you do. And if company A only sells them in quantities of 10,000; then that's what you buy. Even when you only need 25 to fill an order. The world definitely is a funny place. And not always ha-ha funny.

My apologies regarding the 9001:2009 error. I use AS9100 rev. C
 

True Position

Inactive Registered Visitor
#42
As much as some people here would hate to admit, a lot of quality systems are put into place to pass audits and that's about it. It's a customer requirement so you meet the requirement and move on.
 

AndyN

A problem shared...
Staff member
Super Moderator
#43
Yep serious. Add in travel expenses, report fees, prep fees, etc. I should mention that it was aerospace, so that was for a dual certificate (more fees).
:topic:

3 days audit = approx $4K
Hotel = approx $320
Car = $300 + gas
Food = $90 (maybe)
Air ticket = $500/700 (if they don't plan ahead)

Total = under $6,000.00

What was the other $8K for?:mg: Or is it a joke?
 

Randy

Quite Involved in Discussions
Trusted
#44
I didn't notice the money piece in the previous post.

$14K for 3 days?:mg:

$4700 a day? How many auditors, 3-4? It can't be just 1.
 

JaneB

Inactive Registered Visitor
#45
While the switch to doing process based auditing was intended and outlined for 9001:2000, that requirement is for internal audits, NOT RAB registrar audits.
:confused:
Am I to take from this that your contention is that process auditing is purely for internal audits and has nothing to do with any external audits by certifiers, which should be done per elements of Standard, clause by clause? And only started after 2000?

Effective consulting, internal/external, includes spending a lot of time in dialogue with the client, asking questions, listening carefully to answers, observing/analysing and finding out what they have in place now, what's important to them and what the specs/criteria are for what they want. It is irrelevant to whether one gets paid by the week, the hour or the job.

'Easy to do prep in 2 hours for audits and making life easy for our auditors' were obviously key criteria for the doc numbering system you posted, whereas for me they're not. Other relevant factors that were only given later include users not needing to use the doc number and having an office available to manage that end of things.

The context and purpose is important. To simply present a numbering system and say 'this is best' without understanding that kind of context and background never works.

There's a wealth of examples & information available in this forum, but yes it does require a little time and effort to search for. Help is available; spoon feeding isn't.

As for 'enlightenment', I've found that when someone says 'oh do please enlighten me' they mean the opposite. Al's already given an example one in this very thread and very early on.
 
Last edited:
P

PGTIPS8

Guest
#46
With regard to process auditing being for Internal Auditors only, Process auditing should be the premiss for any 9001:2008 audit wether 1ST,2ND,3RD Party or any other typoe of uadit/surviellance/self assessment carried out.
With regard top documentation numbering keep it simple, process based, document Hierarchy linked and kep away from clauses of the standard linkage in document numbering.
Communicate/consult/listen and PDCA at each step in the process for deciding the document numbering system.:agree1:
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#47
As much as some people here would hate to admit, a lot of quality systems are put into place to pass audits and that's about it. It's a customer requirement so you meet the requirement and move on.
Of course that happens. And it is unfortunate. I often use the analogy that many people buy exercise equipment, then do not use it. They hang clothes on it. Both are an unfortunate waste of money. But they both work well if you use them.
 

Jim Wynne

Forum Moderator
Moderator
#48
Of course that happens. And it is unfortunate. I often use the analogy that many people buy exercise equipment, then do not use it. They hang clothes on it. Both are an unfortunate waste of money. But they both work well if you use them.
Unlike disused exercise apparatus, the forced registration is used for its intended purpose--to placate customers--and is then maintained so long as it's necessary to keep placating customers. Why is that "an unfortunate waste of money"? Why is it that customers who force suppliers into ISO registration never seem to notice that the registration doesn't change anything (which is the case if your analogy is apt)?
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#49
Unlike disused exercise apparatus, the forced registration is used for its intended purpose--to placate customers--and is then maintained so long as it's necessary to keep placating customers. Why is that "an unfortunate waste of money"? Why is it that customers who force suppliers into ISO registration never seem to notice that the registration doesn't change anything (which is the case if your analogy is apt)?
I think you answered your own question. Why is that "an unfortunate waste of money"? Because significant cost was spent just getting a certificate, without the intended benefit of improved performance.

ISO became such a common customer request specifically because the expectation was it would make suppliers more robust, with improved performance and quality, and lowered costs.

Done correctly, it is capable of doing that. Many companies have taken it to that level, and are better for it.

Those who were willing to spend 10's of thousands just to buy a certificate - not sure whether to feel sorry for their foolish approach or lack of understanding....
 

Jim Wynne

Forum Moderator
Moderator
#50
I think you answered your own question. Why is that "an unfortunate waste of money"? Because significant cost was spent just getting a certificate, without the intended benefit of improved performance.
No, and you haven't answered the question either. In cases in point, the "intended benefit" was realized when the customer requirement was satisfied, and it continues to be realized as the certification is maintained.

ISO became such a common customer request specifically because the expectation was it would make suppliers more robust, with improved performance and quality, and lowered costs.
Let's not try to rewrite history with with florid marketing language. The ISO 9001 registration feeding frenzy began in the early 90s when companies were led to believe (initially by opportunistic consultants, abetted somewhat by CBs) that they would be locked out of the EU market without it. I know--I was there. It became a "common customer request" in the (demonstrably) misbegotten belief that ISO 9001 registration would lead to the things you say it should lead to. It hasn't led to those things. In essence, nothing changed except the further crumbling of American manufacturing.
 

Top