What to do when the auditors guide does not return

S

samsung

#31
The guide is often helpful in answering questions that auditees can't answer (and shouldn't necessarily be expected to be able to answer) or in know where to get the answers.

Aside from that, the audit generally can't proceed if the guide (or an acceptable substitute) isn't present.
The above information is infact new to me. We didn't take it that way. We formally (but not always, as a rule) depute a guide for two reasons -

- One is to escort the auditor to the auditee & introduce him. If the guide doesn't want to stay for any reason, he's free to take leave of the auditor and we never had any issue from the CB in this regard.

- secondly, we depute an internal auditor just for the sake of learning and knowledge enhancement as the CB auditors are quite experienced and have in-depth knowledge of auditing yet the guide is (normally) not expected to answer the questions on auditee's behalf).
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Wes Bucey

Quite Involved in Discussions
#32
The above information is infact new to me. We didn't take it that way. We formally (but not always, as a rule) depute a guide for two reasons -

- One is to escort the auditor to the auditee & introduce him. If the guide doesn't want to stay for any reason, he's free to take leave of the auditor and we never had any issue from the CB in this regard.

- secondly, we depute an internal auditor just for the sake of learning and knowledge enhancement as the CB auditors are quite experienced and have in-depth knowledge of auditing yet the guide is (normally) not expected to answer the questions on auditee's behalf).
It appears you are considering this situation based on your OWN situation and experience. Consider that the range of operations being audited by any individual auditor runs from a small mom & pop operation up to one scattered over several square miles, numerous buildings, and thousands of employees. Guides may be necessary to ensure an auditor gets from place to place safely and efficiently, nor should the auditor have to wait at an audit stop for such a guide to return to transport or guide to the next station, thus wasting expensive time and money of both the auditor and the guide. Often the nature of the work by an operator is such that he cannot leave his station to escort or cater to the needs of an auditor either for reasons of criticality of the process or safety of the personnel and physical premises.

As Jim Wynne says, guides are often, not always, well-versed in the operation and the Standard being audited. They act to stop unsuitable questions from auditors and to prevent employees from rambling or speculating beyond the question asked by an auditor. In fact, no auditee HAS to know what clause of a Standard his work falls under, he merely has to know how to do his job as trained.

In another vein, many operations have folks with various degrees of fluency in the language an auditor may use to ask questions. There is a probability of misinterpreting the question and thus giving a non-pertinent or incorrect response. It is the guide's task in such situations to keep the focus on the audit and not on the individual employee's ability to form a coherent verbal response to a question.

Ultimately, each situation is unique and the only rule of thumb for the auditor is to be able to adapt to the conditions as he finds them or arrange for the audit to proceed under conditions in which he feels he can safely and efficiently proceed.
 
S

samsung

#33
Wes,

It's certainly based on my own experience and situation and I never heard it before now, not even at this forum (may be this is the first instance known to me when such a question was put up). Perhaps in some countries or some specific situations as you said (like large organizations, scattered operations and thousands employees) it may be customary to depute a fulltime guide with the auditors.

There are some good points in keeping a guide as illustrated by you, Jim and Randy but what confuses me is the role played by the 'guide' - in the circumstances and reasons given here, he is playing more of a role of a 'defender' rather than being a guide.

We too keep guiding the auditor where next he's supposed to move to without wasting his valuable time. Once an auditor has finished up the audit, it's the duty of the auditee audited to guide the auditor to the next station and the incharge here is to take care of entire affairs right from guiding the auditor through the workplace to understanding the questions/ language (repeatedly asking until it's clear to him) and defending himself.
 

Wes Bucey

Quite Involved in Discussions
#34
Wes,

It's certainly based on my own experience and situation and I never heard it before now, not even at this forum (may be this is the first instance known to me when such a question was put up). Perhaps in some countries or some specific situations as you said (like large organizations, scattered operations and thousands employees) it may be customary to depute a fulltime guide with the auditors.

There are some good points in keeping a guide as illustrated by you, Jim and Randy but what confuses me is the role played by the 'guide' - in the circumstances and reasons given here, he is playing more of a role of a 'defender' rather than being a guide.

We too keep guiding the auditor where next he's supposed to move to without wasting his valuable time. Once an auditor has finished up the audit, it's the duty of the auditee audited to guide the auditor to the next station and the incharge here is to take care of entire affairs right from guiding the auditor through the workplace to understanding the questions/ language (repeatedly asking until it's clear to him) and defending himself.
Somehow, I'm not making myself clear to you that YOUR experience is not the criterion for how an auditor should act. It is the combined experience of hundreds and thousands of Wes, Jim, Randy, Jane, Harry surrogates which develop the concept that an auditor should be adaptable to conditions he has never encountered before.

The fact, that in your operation, the organization is comfortable with the option of leaving the auditor alone with an operator is OK with most of us here.

We guess that means your top management is confident that every operator is fully versed in what an auditor may legitimately ask and cognizant of all trade secrets so that he discloses none and that each and every answer he may give is phrased and framed to accurately reflect the organization's policies. Further, that the operator will clearly understand every auditor's questions, regardless of accent, language, vocabulary, and is confident enough to converse on topics affecting his livelihood with a complete stranger, no matter how intimidating.

Further, there are no safety or efficiency issues which might arise if an auditor inadvertently wanders into into a work area where an operator is not prepared for his visit and may be interrupted in the midst of an important process.

If all the foregoing indeed reflects a true picture of your organization, you really have no need for an audit, your organization and all its employees are more perfect than the model envisioned in the Standard.;)
 
S

samsung

#35
If all the foregoing indeed reflects a true picture of your organization, you really have no need for an audit, your organization and all its employees are more perfect than the model envisioned in the Standard.;)
Guide or no guide - what it has to do with a need or no need for an audit. I'm sorry, I didn't get this phrase.
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#36
Somehow, I'm not making myself clear to you that YOUR experience is not the criterion for how an auditor should act. It is the combined experience of hundreds and thousands of Wes, Jim, Randy, Jane, Harry surrogates which develop the concept that an auditor should be adaptable to conditions he has never encountered before.

The fact, that in your operation, the organization is comfortable with the option of leaving the auditor alone with an operator is OK with most of us here.

We guess that means your top management is confident that every operator is fully versed in what an auditor may legitimately ask and cognizant of all trade secrets so that he discloses none and that each and every answer he may give is phrased and framed to accurately reflect the organization's policies. Further, that the operator will clearly understand every auditor's questions, regardless of accent, language, vocabulary, and is confident enough to converse on topics affecting his livelihood with a complete stranger, no matter how intimidating.

Further, there are no safety or efficiency issues which might arise if an auditor inadvertently wanders into into a work area where an operator is not prepared for his visit and may be interrupted in the midst of an important process.

If all the foregoing indeed reflects a true picture of your organization, you really have no need for an audit, your organization and all its employees are more perfect than the model envisioned in the Standard.;)
First, Samsung refers not to operators, but to auditees, which might mean department or area supervisors. I think we can also assume that when a third-party (or second-party, for that matter) is going on, everyone who needs to know about it does know, and no is going to be ambushed or surprised.

Also, we should never assume that what might be common practice in one geographic area is common in all areas. If a practice is common in Elbonia but not in the US, we shouldn't be suprised when an Elbonian questions the American methods, or vice versa.

If an audit can proceed to the auditor's satisfaction without there being a guide through the whole process, I don't see a problem.
 

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration with a Mask on...
Staff member
Admin
#37
<snip> Once an auditor has finished up the audit, it's the duty of the auditee audited to guide the auditor to the next station <snip>
What about when the auditee is at a machine s/he can not leave? What about if the auditee is handicapped in some way? I have been in companies that hired quite a few "mentally challenged" people for certain jobs who often needed help in audits.

If every audit was simple and predictable, this would make more sense. Audits are too unpredictable to be able to plan in a way where every you can set a schedule like "audit Sam, then audit Sally, then audit..." and know it's going to go that way. What happens if an auditor "smells" something and wants to track a different trail than is planned?

Using your method (just have every auditee pass the auditor to the next person who on the list) there is also the aspect of ensuring *every* employee knows who to pass the auditor off to, especially considering not every employee is going to be audited and there is no way to tell which specific employees will be audited.

What happens if the auditor decides s/he needs to see something else (such as to verify something) and deviates from the plan a bit. Will *every* employee of the company know what to do if they were told (after the auditor is done with you, send the auditor to "Sam" at station Y)?

It might help if instead of using the word "guide", we use the word "escort".

I have never allowed a client go through an audit without a guide who stayed with the auditor and was at least a supervisor (a manager was preferred). Having said that, one specific guide is not necessary. There can be hand offs from one department to another, for example. I think the point here is the auditor should never be left alone with an auditee. At least one other company representative should be present (in my opinion, of course) at all times, preferably someone in company management.

As a last thought, there is the "He said - She said" aspect (particularly when a nonconformance is identified). Leaving an auditor alone with an auditee is just asking for trouble (again, in my opinion).
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#38
What about when the auditee is at a machine s/he can not leave? What about if the auditee is handicapped in some way? I have been in companies that hired quite a few "mentally challenged" people for certain jobs who often needed help in audits.

If every audit was simple and predictable, this would make more sense. Audits are too unpredictable to be able to plan in a way where every you can set a schedule like "audit Sam, then audit Sally, then audit..." and know it's going to go that way. What happens if an auditor "smells" something and wants to track a different trail than is planned?

Using your method (just have every auditee pass the auditor to the next person who on the list) there is also the aspect of ensuring *every* employee knows who to pass the auditor off to, especially considering not every employee is going to be audited and there is no way to tell which specific employees will be audited.

What happens if the auditor decides s/he needs to see something else (such as to verify something) and deviates from the plan a bit. Will *every* employee of the company know what to do if they were told (after the auditor is done with you, send the auditor to "Sam" at station Y)?

It might help if instead of using the word "guide", we use the word "escort".

I have never allowed a client go through an audit without a guide who stayed with the auditor and was at least a supervisor (a manager was preferred). Having said that, one specific guide is not necessary. There can be hand offs from one department to another, for example. I think the point here is the auditor should never be left alone with an auditee. At least one other company representative should be present (in my opinion, of course) at all times, preferably someone in company management.
In my experience it's usually the management representative who accompanies the auditor for the most part, but there are times when he/she will break away briefly (which is the subject of the original query) and leave the auditor with an auditee. Whether that's a good idea depends a lot on the circumstances, such as whether the person being questioned is a manager or other well-versed person or a machine operator who might not be comfortable with the whole situation, or someone who's known to be in the habit of giving 10-minute answers to yes-or-no questions.

When there's an auditor who's never been to my company before (or who has been but before I came) I like to be there the whole time if I can, just to get to know the auditor's habits and idiosyncrasies, and manage the process if it's necessary. Sometimes auditors talk too much, too.
 
S

samsung

#40
What about when the auditee is at a machine s/he can not leave? What about if the auditee is handicapped in some way? I have been in companies that hired quite a few "mentally challenged" people for certain jobs who often needed help in audits.

If every audit was simple and predictable, this would make more sense. Audits are too unpredictable to be able to plan in a way where every you can set a schedule like "audit Sam, then audit Sally, then audit..." and know it's going to go that way. What happens if an auditor "smells" something and wants to track a different trail than is planned?

Using your method (just have every auditee pass the auditor to the next person who on the list) there is also the aspect of ensuring *every* employee knows who to pass the auditor off to, especially considering not every employee is going to be audited and there is no way to tell which specific employees will be audited.

What happens if the auditor decides s/he needs to see something else (such as to verify something) and deviates from the plan a bit. Will *every* employee of the company know what to do if they were told (after the auditor is done with you, send the auditor to "Sam" at station Y)?

It might help if instead of using the word "guide", we use the word "escort".

I have never allowed a client go through an audit without a guide who stayed with the auditor and was at least a supervisor (a manager was preferred). Having said that, one specific guide is not necessary. There can be hand offs from one department to another, for example. I think the point here is the auditor should never be left alone with an auditee. At least one other company representative should be present (in my opinion, of course) at all times, preferably someone in company management.

As a last thought, there is the "He said - She said" aspect (particularly when a nonconformance is identified). Leaving an auditor alone with an auditee is just asking for trouble (again, in my opinion).
One thing I like is the word 'escort' which is more appropriate and relevant to the task the guy is assigned with. I was much confused with the term 'guide' in the beginning of the thread.

I didn't say it's not a good practice. It has some advantages and may add some value to the whole purpose of getting the system audited by a third party (assuming an escort is needed for third party audits only). I fully agree. I just described what I've seen here and heard of and as I said before, till now we didn't face any problem with this practice (that's in no way to signify that what we have been practicing is the best practice).

Now, with regard to escorting the auditor, he is all the time escorted by an auditee, (well clarified by Jim in his previous post) not a person but an entire department headed by a person not below the level of General Manager and supported by a team of managers and engineers. So, even if the trail of audit undergoes an abrupt and unexpected change (and it does), it doesn't adversely affect the audit process.

So far I considered a 'guide' like a quality manager or a dedicated person(s) who all the time remain associated with the audit team.

Thanks
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
C Reference Guide for Process Auditors - Yet another Process Auditing Tool General Auditing Discussions 1
Coury Ferguson Interpretation of IAF Guide 62 - Establishing the Competence of the Auditors Registrars and Notified Bodies 11
M Do AS9100 Registrar Auditors have nonconformity quotas? General Auditing Discussions 18
B Internal Auditor Competency - Product Auditors Internal Auditing 9
M Question for Auditors - "Off the Record" Conversation? General Auditing Discussions 14
I What direction do you provide your internal auditors on OFIs? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 38
M Choosing Auditors - ISO 9001 / ISO 27001 (UK) IEC 27001 - Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) 2
E Choosing an ISO 9001 registrar with auditors familiar with our industry Registrars and Notified Bodies 10
ScottK Question for Auditors on 7.1.4 in the ISO9001:2015 revision ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
S MDR (Medical Device Regulations 2017/745) training recommendation for Auditors EU Medical Device Regulations 1
S How can we demonstrate to MDSAP auditors that we have the requisite training ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 9
M CB and Internal auditors most common nonconformities against AS9100D AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 16
C Selecting potential internal auditors Internal Auditing 3
K Tips for dealing with third party auditors General Auditing Discussions 11
J ISO 9001 Competency - Forklift License and Internal Auditors ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
O How will you handle Clause 6.1 - Risks and Opportunities for AS9100 Rev. D Auditors? Risk Management Principles and Generic Guidelines 22
T Can a Lead Auditor Train other Auditors? Internal Auditing 4
A Professional Headhunters for External Auditors Career and Occupation Discussions 7
Sidney Vianna Auditors and CB's further investigating certified QMS' with ethical breaches? Registrars and Notified Bodies 8
W DCMA and AS9100C - Dedicating a week and 5 auditors to perform a AS9100C audit AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 7
Crimpshrine13 ISO/TS 16949 CBs & Auditors not following up on the schedules IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 43
H Any ISO 9001 consultants/auditors in Oahu, Hawaii ? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
S Subject Matter Expert Training for Auditors Internal Auditing 13
S Is it a Finding if all Internal Auditors are from the Quality Department? Internal Auditing 18
R Are ISO 9001 Lead Auditors in demand? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
B ISO/TS16949 Internal Auditing - How many auditors? Internal Auditing 4
D Number of Internal Auditors Best Practice Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 18
A Training Supplier Auditors ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
T Would my AS 9110 certificate lapse due to non availability of auditors ? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 11
T Kids in the office from an auditors standpoint ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 13
T Qualification System of Internal Auditors is not Effective General Auditing Discussions 5
S Internal Auditors shall not audit their own work? Internal Auditing 21
R Female auditors earn 18% less than male auditors - IRCA Salary Survey 2014 Career and Occupation Discussions 0
J Wanting to Train our Internal Auditors Ourselves Internal Auditing 7
S Recertification Frequency for TS 16949 Lead Auditors General Auditing Discussions 4
Sidney Vianna As a profession we, auditors, are not doing enough - Simon Feary speech Registrars and Notified Bodies 36
Ninja Blind Gopher Auditors Comment - Who is responsible? Registrars and Notified Bodies 23
R Auditors Auditing Against ISO 9001:2015 Draft ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 33
R Auditors can NOT audit their own work audit finding Internal Auditing 17
Q Qualified Internal Auditors for AS9100 AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 37
B API approved Auditors in India Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 3
M How to measure effectiveness and efficiency of the established QMS as Auditors ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 14
R Should internal auditors be compulsorily certified as internal auditors ? Internal Auditing 11
W Is formal training required for Internal Auditors? Internal Auditing 7
K Auditors are trying to drive this business General Auditing Discussions 36
K Auditor Objects to List of Internal Auditors General Auditing Discussions 6
Mikishots AS91X0 Third Party Auditor Cycling and Changing Auditors AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 6
D What Factors to consider to determine the Number of Auditors Internal Auditing 3
E Who Audits the Auditors in a Company? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 12
P Which training system or LMS (Learning Management System) to train Auditors? Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 8

Similar threads

Top Bottom