S
Randy Lefferts said:
Well, let's see...am fairly busy today so will be back later/tomorrow with things I don't get to mention.
We had 3 auditors for 3 days. Each auditor, of course, interpreted things a bit differently which made for an interesting time.
Since they audit by process, they all ended up auditing the same areas (i.e. doc cntl, rcd ctl, etc ) at one time or other, which brings their unique interpretation into play. One auditor felt we did a great job with our quality manual, another felt we had the worst quality manual he had seen.
Inputs/outputs were hit hard. They were looking for the "physical" inputs/outputs of a process. For example, an output of your Final Inspection process is not "Reduced PPM or Reduced Customer Issues" or the like, it would be "Approved Product" or "Rejected Product". Something they could "touch", so to speak.
Process effectiveness was hit on fairly hard. How do you determine that your process is effective. (As well as efficiency. You have measurables to show whether you are efficient at a process as well)
Process approach auditing is a necessity. We used the MSA checklists, modified to include our process owners, where appropriate, and audited as a team. However, they disapproved of the checklists. In the end, we received a nonconformance for how we audited internally, so we revised our method to mimic the auditors, performed several audits and submitted that with our action plan. Basically, they don't like you to audit using the checklists and as a matter of fact, they informed us that they could no longer use them on audits. Basically, audit the process and how it is supposed to work, whether everything is happening as it is supposed to happen, whether the process is generating the desired outputs and whether or not the process is effective. This will bounce you around to several areas, most of the time and you end up auditing quite a bit, but it actually seems easier.
Will post more tomorrow, off to answer Tattva
We had 3 auditors for 3 days. Each auditor, of course, interpreted things a bit differently which made for an interesting time.
Since they audit by process, they all ended up auditing the same areas (i.e. doc cntl, rcd ctl, etc ) at one time or other, which brings their unique interpretation into play. One auditor felt we did a great job with our quality manual, another felt we had the worst quality manual he had seen.
Inputs/outputs were hit hard. They were looking for the "physical" inputs/outputs of a process. For example, an output of your Final Inspection process is not "Reduced PPM or Reduced Customer Issues" or the like, it would be "Approved Product" or "Rejected Product". Something they could "touch", so to speak.
Process effectiveness was hit on fairly hard. How do you determine that your process is effective. (As well as efficiency. You have measurables to show whether you are efficient at a process as well)
Process approach auditing is a necessity. We used the MSA checklists, modified to include our process owners, where appropriate, and audited as a team. However, they disapproved of the checklists. In the end, we received a nonconformance for how we audited internally, so we revised our method to mimic the auditors, performed several audits and submitted that with our action plan. Basically, they don't like you to audit using the checklists and as a matter of fact, they informed us that they could no longer use them on audits. Basically, audit the process and how it is supposed to work, whether everything is happening as it is supposed to happen, whether the process is generating the desired outputs and whether or not the process is effective. This will bounce you around to several areas, most of the time and you end up auditing quite a bit, but it actually seems easier.
Will post more tomorrow, off to answer Tattva
Refer to the note at the end of 8.2.2.4.
Also, checklists were used at the supplier auditor training course at AIAG.
