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.
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.
Excellent points, Jim!
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
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
The point I've been trying to make is the situation as presented to the OP leaves too many "what if" questions for there to be a hard and fast answer. In answering, the student who gets a question like that must display his knowledge that there is a range of conditions which may pertain and the auditor must make his decision on how to proceed based on the particular sense of conditions which exist at that particular moment. These may include the status of the person he is left with, the status of the audit to that moment, the danger or safety of being left without a specific escort, even whether there has been a systematic atmosphere of delaying or camouflaging activity to hide things from the auditor. Remember, sometimes things are simple, and sometimes they are terribly complicated, but we hope to train our auditors to be able to deal with new situations, not try to cram each new situation into a pre-set mold.

Which I'm fine with. 
. But still you can "be fine with your own reasoning"