Value Added External Audits - Do External Audits add value to your system?

Have you had any experience of audits that add value to your system?

  • Yes. An external audit has given me value above what I expected.

    Votes: 4 44.4%
  • Yes. I have carried out an audit that I believe added value to a customer's system.

    Votes: 3 33.3%
  • No. Any audits I have had have just covered the elements of ISO.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No. The idea of value added audits is a non starter.

    Votes: 2 22.2%

  • Total voters
    9
L

Laura M

#11
Most of my clients feel the external registration audit is value added. The one that doesn't, also does not take a 'value addded' approach to ISO. They also may not be a client much longer.

Looking at myself as an "external" internal auditor in some cases, I've provided consulting tips when I saw fit. They were not out of compliance to the customer requirements, or ISO, but I saw potential for improvement. I asked the QM if he wanted me to point out those things which were 100% based on experience and could be considered 'preventive action' and he said 'Absolutely.'
In that regard, I think their 'internal audit' is more valuable that a couple of 16 hour course internal 'trainees' that may only audit to fulfill the requirement. They seemed very happy to have outsourced the internal audit component.
I do have a little concern that their particular registrar is not known for 'value added' audits, and they may think I'm being 'too hard' but the QM and I hit is off and the organization is 'doing ISO' for the right reason.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
B

betterlife

#12
I am all for external audits.

But, let me explain what I mean by external audits. Almost all management system standards specify periodic audits to be carried by the organization to find out the status (effectiveness) of system implementation and to idenify any areas for improvement. If the organization has taken third-party certification then the certification agency carries out their periodic audits for the purpose of deciding for continuation or otherwise of system certification. Audits carried out by the organization are termed as internal audits and by the certification agency as external audits.

It has been my experience that both these audits, as these are being carried out, are not adding any substantial value to the organization's business performance and system implementation. In both these audits, auditors generally refrain from giving major NC and many areas needing immediate attention remain unreported. Where, internal auditors have their own compulsions of protecting themselves from the ire of the process heads if they report a NC in their process, external auditors have their business compulsion, as the organization might not be close major NC and the agency might loose a client.

It is therefore advisable to get an external audit done by an auditor or an agency which is totally independent and have no compulsions of not reporting the actual performance and areas of improvement. This report may be kept confidential and be used by the top management to take required actions.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#13
puzzled

jmp4429 said:
Can someone draw the line for me between “value added” auditing and consulting? I’m guessing that if the suggestions made could cause a conflict of interest next audit, you’ve crossed the line into consulting. Is that about accurate?
First of all, thanks Paul for creating this poll. I am still puzzled by how we can reach so drastically opposing views after reading the IAF Guidance to Guide 62. The one thing that is unquestionable is that nobody involved with consulting should find themselves in the role of a 3rd party assessor (and vice versa) for the same organization. That is clearly a conflict of interest and it is prohibited.
So, in my view point, the next logical question is: What constitutes consulting? Would a preliminary assessment, prior to the actual certification audit be deemed as consulting? What about a private training session? Etc.
Questions like that is what the IAF Guidance document attempts to answer in paragraph G.2.1.24

"...G.2.1.24. Certification/registration bodies can carry out the following duties without them being considered as consultancy or necessarily creating a conflict of interests. However, all potential conflicts of interests should be dealt with in accordance with G.2.1.29:



a) certification/registration including information meetings, planning meetings, examination of documents, auditing (not internal auditing) and follow up of nonconformities;


b) arranging and participating as a lecturer in training courses, provided that where these courses relate to quality assurance, management systems or auditing they should confine themselves to the provision of generic information and advice which is freely available in the public domain, i.e. they should not provide company specific advice which contravenes the requirements of G.2.1.23.c);


c) making available or publishing on request information on the basis for the certification/registration body’s interpretation of the requirements of the assessment standards;


d) activities prior to audit aimed solely at determining readiness for assessment; but such activities should not result in the provision of recommendations or advice that would contravene guidance G.2.1.23. and the certification/registration body should be able to confirm that such activities do not contravene these provisions and that they are not used to justify a reduction in the eventual assessment duration;


e) performing second and third party audits according to other standards or regulations than those being part of the scope of accreditation;


f) adding value during assessments and surveillance visits, e.g., by identifying opportunities for improvement, as they become evident, during the audit without recommending specific solutions..."
I will certainly be paying attention to the poll results here. If it becomes clear that the majority does not want value added assessments by their external auditors, I would probably be inclined to invite Paul for a partnership and release the Valueless Audits ® approach lmao.gif
Auditor too nosy and oppinionated? Try our Valueless Audits ® omg.gif
 
Last edited:

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#14
Sidney Vianna said:
I will certainly be paying attention to the poll results here. If it becomes clear that the majority does not want value added assessments by their external auditors, I would probably be inclined to invite Paul for a partnership and release the Valueless Audits ® approach lmao.gif
Auditor too nosy and oppinionated? Try our Valueless Audits ® omg.gif

I swore to myself that I was going to steer clear of this one, but let me step in for a moment in order to attempt to add value to the discussion.
I think Sidney is creating a false dichotomy here, albeit in a lighthearted way. The issue is not value or no value; it's obvious that any efficacious audit will be a valuable tool in one way or another. The question, which seems to keep getting trampled underfoot, is whether or not a registrar's auditor (as that is what Guide 62 addresses) should have the option to materially assist an auditee in correcting issues that might prevent registration. If you answer in the affirmative, then you have to answer an additional question: Do you think it equitable that a registrar's auditor, out of the goodness of his heart, assists one auditee, but because he's having a bad day, or just doesn't feel like it, doesn't offer equivalent assistance to the auditee's competitor?
 

Paul Simpson

Trusted Information Resource
#15
Sidney Vianna said:
I will certainly be paying attention to the poll results here. If it becomes clear that the majority does not want value added assessments by their external auditors, I would probably be inclined to invite Paul for a partnership and release the Valueless Audits ® approach lmao.gif

Auditor too nosy and oppinionated? Try our Valueless Audits ® omg.gif [/size]
I am right there, Sidney. I have already registered "Tick in a box Inc." and "Hang it on the wall Ltd." for the certificate seekers. I am working on a trademark ... something like "Audit without having to think about it" perhaps?

JSW05 said:
The question, which seems to keep getting trampled underfoot, is whether or not a registrar's auditor (as that is what Guide 62 addresses) should have the option to materially assist an auditee in correcting issues that might prevent registration.]
The poll was specifically about adding value during an audit. Discussed in much detail elsewhere. I would rather stick to the wording of Guide 62 (First para in my quote from Sidney's post) that enter another round of discussion of interpretation.
Sidney Vianna said:
f) adding value during assessments and surveillance visits, e.g., by identifying opportunities for improvement, as they become evident, during the audit without recommending specific solutions..."
 
J

jcbodie

#16
betterlife said:
It has been my experience that both these audits, as these are being carried out, are not adding any substantial value to the organization's business performance and system implementation. In both these audits, auditors generally refrain from giving major NC and many areas needing immediate attention remain unreported. Where, internal auditors have their own compulsions of protecting themselves from the ire of the process heads if they report a NC in their process, external auditors have their business compulsion, as the organization might not be close major NC and the agency might loose a client.

I'm glad you qualified your remarks with "...my experience", because YOUR experience does not reflect what I, as a 3rd party Registrar Auditor, and my colleagues (over 13 yrs., at 2 major Registrars) do in the field. I have NEVER hesitated to write MAJOR's/NC's in any situation, when warranted, for 2 very good reasons: 1) I am not doing the company who is trying to get registered the "favor" of passing them, and 2) I feel I'm protecting the value of the "piece of paper" that other companies have worked hard to achieve. For the folks I have written MAJOR's to, they have always (maybe grudgingly at first) conceded that the MAJOR was deserved and that it actually helped strengthen their system. I also give them the 2 reasons above, and they agree, because once they have achieved their certification, they don't want it "watered down" either.

It is very tiresome in Cove threads, to see terms like "auditors generally", etc., when the person emailing is speaking from their own experience (or a few of their friends) only. :frust: Using vague generalizations, about anything, only promotes rumor and folklore. As I have often said, I don't doubt that some of you have had bad experiences, but I can say the same about auto mechanics, doctors, lawyers, HR ...and some ISO clients, etc., and yet I don't condemn entire groups. It comes down to the person you're interfacing with, and if you have had a bad experience, maybe you need to ask for a different auditor, or get a different Registrar. We are not all cut from the same cloth.

Regarding your "Internal Auditor" comments, I always tell people at the closing meeting, that these folks have one of the tougher jobs in ISO, as they must audit people on a Friday and come back on Monday, to work side by side with them. Not easy to do, when auditees can take things personally. That is where YOU come in, Mr. Site Management, in making sure your personnel understand the purpose of the auditing (not as a Witch Hunt, but as a way of making your company more efficient) AND in supporting these folks, including whatever valid comments they document. If your Internal Auditors are more concerned about "...protecting themselves from the ire of the process heads..", and that you feel this decreases the value of your Internal Audits, it becomes obvious that YOUR management is sending mixed signals about it's support of your QMS and that is YOUR managements' fault, not the auditors or the internal auditor process. :(
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#17
jcbodie said:
It is very tiresome in Cove threads, to see terms like "auditors generally", etc., when the person emailing is speaking from their own experience (or a few of their friends) only. frustrated.gif Using vague generalizations, about anything, only promotes rumor and folklore. As I have often said, I don't doubt that some of you have had bad experiences, but I can say the same about auto mechanics, doctors, lawyers, HR ...and some ISO clients, etc., and yet I don't condemn entire groups. It comes down to the person you're interfacing with, and if you have had a bad experience, maybe you need to ask for a different auditor, or get a different Registrar. We are not all cut from the same cloth.

A very articulate and well-reasoned post:agree1: . The only thing I'd like to point out is that we are all prisoners of our own experiences; I think it's a valuable thing for everyone to relate their own, and that there are people like you on the other side of the fence who can provide some additional illumination and balance.
 
B

betterlife

#18
I don't find any conflict between 'value auditing' and consulting. Both are aimed to achieve same result, and that is improvemnt of system implementation. Both are adding value to the system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
B

betterlife

#19
jcbodie said:
I'm glad you qualified your remarks with "...my experience", because YOUR experience does not reflect what I, as a 3rd party Registrar Auditor, and my colleagues (over 13 yrs., at 2 major Registrars) do in the field. I have NEVER hesitated to write MAJOR's/NC's in any situation, when warranted, for 2 very good reasons: 1) I am not doing the company who is trying to get registered the "favor" of passing them, and 2) I feel I'm protecting the value of the "piece of paper" that other companies have worked hard to achieve. For the folks I have written MAJOR's to, they have always (maybe grudgingly at first) conceded that the MAJOR was deserved and that it actually helped strengthen their system. I also give them the 2 reasons above, and they agree, because once they have achieved their certification, they don't want it "watered down" either.
I agree with your viewpoint. As a matter of fact, I was only advocating an external audit done by an independent person or organization in addition to company's own internal audit and external audit by certification agency (CA). The need of such an external audit has to be determined by the company. If the company is getting value addition through internal audits and CA audits then there will be no need for an additional external audit.

It is very tiresome in Cove threads, to see terms like "auditors generally", etc., when the person emailing is speaking from their own experience (or a few of their friends) only. :frust: Using vague generalizations, about anything, only promotes rumor and folklore. As I have often said, I don't doubt that some of you have had bad experiences, but I can say the same about auto mechanics, doctors, lawyers, HR ...and some ISO clients, etc., and yet I don't condemn entire groups. It comes down to the person you're interfacing with, and if you have had a bad experience, maybe you need to ask for a different auditor, or get a different Registrar. We are not all cut from the same cloth.


I agree that vague generalizations should be avoided based on experience with one or two auditors, certification agencies or consultants only. One should share his or her experience and avoid passing judgments.

Regarding your "Internal Auditor" comments, I always tell people at the closing meeting, that these folks have one of the tougher jobs in ISO, as they must audit people on a Friday and come back on Monday, to work side by side with them. Not easy to do, when auditees can take things personally. That is where YOU come in, Mr. Site Management, in making sure your personnel understand the purpose of the auditing (not as a Witch Hunt, but as a way of making your company more efficient) AND in supporting these folks, including whatever valid comments they document. If your Internal Auditors are more concerned about "...protecting themselves from the ire of the process heads..", and that you feel this decreases the value of your Internal Audits, it becomes obvious that YOUR management is sending mixed signals about it's support of your QMS and that is YOUR managements' fault, not the auditors or the internal auditor process.
There can be no disagreement to the statement that top management should send right signals about its support and commitment to the QMS. I don't hold that the internal auditor or CA auditors are at fault. It is the environment in a company which is responsible and that is the creation of a non-commited top management.

I have seen in many opening and closing meetings, auditors talking about not associating the results of audit with the performance of a department or a person, and top management readily agreeing to it But when the auditor starts reading NCs the chief starts glaring at concerned persons.
 
A

amanbhai

#20
Do external audits add value to your system

Actually, this happend when I was first audited externally. before that I was told by my senior Internal auditos that we have to check the documents & this & that. when I was external audited that was first time I realized that the purpose of audits is not to document the sytem but to improve it.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
BeaBea Registrars with VAR (Value Added Reseller) experience Registrars and Notified Bodies 8
G Non Value Added Corrective Actions IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 15
V Analysis of 'Value Added' System & Process Steps - Inspection Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 2
D Value-Added Analysis - Staff (Employee) Satisfaction Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 11
T ISO Auditor Training - What online training is actually value added? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 13
WCHorn Are Inspection Operations Value Added? Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 50
A Value added activities and WIP in a VSM Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 2
B Distributor Outsourcing Value Added Services - Is it work transfer? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 9
Z How to Establish a Process in Terms of more Added Value? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
J Adding Value to a 3rd Party Audit - What does 'Value Added' mean to you? General Auditing Discussions 25
M SPC vs. 100% Inspection - Is SPC still value-added when 100% inspection is in place? FMEA and Control Plans 40
Jen Kirley Beyond Compliance: Value-added auditing for system performance The Reading Room 9
G Added Value of EN9100 Certification for the Business - Aerospace and defence AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 2
W Is R&D a value-added process? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
R Added Value Benefits for a Warehousing Company to be ISO13485 Registered ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
T Recertification for Internal Supplier Auditors value added General Auditing Discussions 9
D Testing process is non value added process under TS16949? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
T Increasing Quality: Cost vs. Value Added Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 3
L Corrective Action System - Not Value Added ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 10
D VALUE ADDED - Take 2 Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 28
D Definition Value Added - Definition of 'Value Added' and the Three Levels of Value Added Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations Listed Alphabetically 46
A Linking ISO 9000 to Economic Value Added ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
S PPAP can we say waiver? A bureaucratic, non value-added mess QS-9000 - American Automotive Manufacturers Standard 38
M Determining a tolerance value for Measuring devices in-house inspection General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 12
Proud Liberal Improving low p-value Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 13
qualprod Best approach to get a real value as average? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 6
F Missing value of Uncertainty B Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 10
F Calibration certificate content - Average Value and True Value ISO 17025 related Discussions 6
S In BAC5300 we have machining mismatch allowed is 3tau, what is the value of tau? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 1
S Change value of target during a batch Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 0
A Acceptance p-value for linearity and bias analysis in minitab results Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 0
A Torque Value for Different types of Fasteners (Socket Head, Button Head, CSK) Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
M IATF 16949 - 8.5.6.1.1 Providing a list of process controls: Does this requirement add value to QMS? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
qualprod Cycle times, value stream mapping, inventory, average values? Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 1
Ashok sunder What are the criteria for setting a target KPI value against a quality objective? Benchmarking 7
S Adding Value prior to signing EASA Form 1 EASA and JAA Aviation Standards and Requirements 5
M Creating a Plant Level Value Stream Map Process Maps, Process Mapping and Turtle Diagrams 1
A IMDS - Changing the Locked Weight Value RoHS, REACH, ELV, IMDS and Restricted Substances 1
T Value Chain Map for Food Services Industry Service Industry Specific Topics 1
O P-Value less than 0.05. but everything else in control Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 19
qualprod P x I = Value interpretation for residual risk? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
O CPK with a P value less than 0.005 Manufacturing and Related Processes 8
G What degrees of freedom means in uncertainty budget and how do I set the value Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 2
Q Really do they add value (Vision, Mission, Values)? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
D What is the exact Temperature Coefficient Value to be set on a Conductivity Meter? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 2
M Value Stream Mapping Calculations Process Maps, Process Mapping and Turtle Diagrams 5
L How to interpret the average R bar Value shown in the R Chart Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
R How To Calculate & Print CDF and Lower Bound CDF value for some t(time) with Minitab? Using Minitab Software 1
P Purpose of calculating Uncertainty value in calibration study Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 5
J Agenda of Value Stream Mapping workshop required Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 1

Similar threads

Top Bottom