What to do when the auditors guide does not return

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#51
Where have you brought this "absolutely correct phrase" from? Can you please quote any single standard reference in support of its legitimacy? It's necessary because when you are conveying your message to masses (including students), your contentions must be based on well established and internationally acceptable references. It's just not simply about winning an argument.
For what it's worth, I agree that the standard defines "auditee" as the organization and not an individual within the organization. Nonetheless, I don't think that belaboring the point is particularly helpful so long as we have context to guide us in understanding what's meant when someone refers to an auditee.

For example, if a CB auditor were to make reference in an audit report to a conversation ( or interview, or an incident of verbal intercourse, whatever) with an auditee regarding document control (for example) and the auditor quotes something the person said, there isn't much chance that the reader is going to wonder if the auditor had been speaking to an inanimate object or to some sort of abstract concept.

On the other hand, if the auditor were referring, say, to the general condition of the organization's QMS, I think it more likely that the auditor would refer to "the organization's QMS," or "the audited company's QMS." If he did refer to "the auditee" in such a broad context, though, I think the reader would know what he was referring to.

It's a distinction without a significant difference, at least in terms of native speakers of English. On the other hand, if one is dealing with non-native speakers or translations of the requirements from English to another language, there might be significant distinctions. In the current example, I think a native speaker of English would see "guide" and "escort" as synonymous in this context, but in a language where there isn't a variety of words to choose from, the translation could be tricky.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
S

samsung

#52
For what it's worth, I agree that the standard defines "auditee" as the organization and not an individual within the organization. Nonetheless, I don't think that belaboring the point is particularly helpful so long as we have context to guide us in understanding what's meant when someone refers to an auditee.

For example, if a CB auditor were to make reference in an audit report to a conversation ( or interview, or an incident of verbal intercourse, whatever) with an auditee regarding document control (for example) and the auditor quotes something the person said, there isn't much chance that the reader is going to wonder if the auditor had been speaking to an inanimate object or to some sort of abstract concept.
I understand the point but when there's a conflict and people try to impose their own definitions, the 'standard' is the arbitrator. After getting sufficient understanding of the thread discussion, I too admitted that the (external) auditor all the time (except for lunch break) remains escorted or guided by the auditee who is not only responsible for the area being audited but also for the replies/ responses given by the individuals being interviewed by the auditor in that particular area. Anyone in the area/process being audited can be interviewed by the auditor but all are not responsible for conformance (or nonconformance) but the auditee since people might just be following the instructions of their superiors/reporting officers and the auditor may find those instructions/actions being inconsistent with the stipulated requirements.

On the other hand, if the auditor were referring, say, to the general condition of the organization's QMS, I think it more likely that the auditor would refer to "the organization's QMS," or "the audited company's QMS." If he did refer to "the auditee" in such a broad context, though, I think the reader would know what he was referring to.
Absolutely fine and this is what I was referring to, i.e. "Organization's QMS" and hence the organization is the auditee. Even a deptt./area/part of an organization in itself is an 'organization' where the person responsible will be the auditee but not the 'janitors'. That's perhaps why the auditor would also mention in his/her report that "such and such processes/ areas were audited and so and so persons interviewed"

Thanks.
 
J

JaneB

#53
As many of us have said - the point of the question when posed to a student is to elicit the concept that each audit is unique and circumstances of the moment determine an auditor's course of action, NOT a rigid reliance on one ironclad immutable set of responses regardless of the circumstance. If every auditor (internal or external) were to be so rigid, we would defeat the idea of an international Standard being a guide for organizations to adapt to their needs and revert back to the bad old days when most people in the quality profession, especially auditors and inspectors, were regarded as evil Kwality Kops.
Yes, just so. Well said, Wes.
 

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration with a Mask on...
Staff member
Admin
#54
Wes Bucey said:
---Quote (Originally by Wes Bucey)---
As many of us have said - the point of the question when posed to a student is to elicit the concept that each audit is unique and circumstances of the moment determine an auditor's course of action, NOT a rigid reliance on one ironclad immutable set of responses regardless of the circumstance. If every auditor (internal or external) were to be so rigid, we would defeat the idea of an international Standard being a guide for organizations to adapt to their needs and revert back to the bad old days when most people in the quality profession, especially auditors and inspectors, were regarded as evil Kwality Kops.
---End Quote---
Yes, just so. Well said, Wes.
Unless I'm missing something, I guess we've gotten to the philosophy stage.

Can anyone help me with the below question
An auditor is conducting a third party QMS audit and the guide that has been appointed to accompany him is called away by his supervisor. After five minutes, the guide has not returned. What should the auditor do? What should the auditor not do?
I had a *very* similar question in one of the lead auditor courses I took back in the 1990's. It sounds to me like you (Wes) are saying that the question isn't appropriate, can't be answered or something.

We all *have* to know that every audit is a different scenario so there is no set answer. It's an essay question. Are we over thinking things here? I didn't have a problem with it. It's just a "What If...?" question.

Am I missing something here? If I'm off the track here some how, let me know. It sounds to me like that's what you're saying, is that right, Wes?
 

Wes Bucey

Quite Involved in Discussions
#56
Unless I'm missing something, I guess we've gotten to the philosophy stage.

I had a *very* similar question in one of the lead auditor courses I took back in the 1990's. It sounds to me like you (Wes) are saying that the question isn't appropriate, can't be answered or something.

We all *have* to know that every audit is a different scenario so there is no set answer. It's an essay question. Are we over thinking things here? I didn't have a problem with it. It's just a "What If...?" question.

Am I missing something here? If I'm off the track here some how, let me know. It sounds to me like that's what you're saying, is that right, Wes?
You are absolutely correct - it is an "essay question" where the student is expected to put forward a cogent response that demonstrates he understands that each organization is unique and that a five minute wait for an escort [guide] at one organization is perfectly acceptable, while at another (because of the context) it is not - perhaps because of danger, perhaps because it is part of a pattern of delaying the auditor while "clean up " folks scurry ahead to put in ringers (well-trained substitutes) at work stations to present a rosy picture to the auditor because the regular workers at those stations have no idea of being able to answer typical auditor questions based on getting answers to these parts of Section 7 Product Realization:
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
Quality objectives & requirements
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What are they?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]How do you know?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Can you show me a document that has these spelled out?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
Processes, documents and resources specific to the product
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What are they?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Can you show me a sample of one of the documents that tells you this?
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Verification, validation, monitoring, inspection & test and acceptance criteria[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]How do you know the finished product meets the specifications?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Where are these specifications?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Do you determine this or someone else?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If not you, who?[/FONT] how?
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]How are you informed if your product does not meet the specification?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What follows (will follow) after that?
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Records for the realization process and that product meets requirements[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Who enters these records?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Where are they kept?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Do you have access to them?[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Some organizations have managers who are under the impression every operator must be able to parrot back textbook-like answers to an auditor. That [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]impression [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] is far from the truth. The auditor is trying to determine whether the operators (by dint of training or experience) are
  1. aware of the existence of quality requirements for what they do;
  2. able to perform their assigned task to meet those requirements;
  3. aware of how the product or service is determined to meet the requirements (inspection? SPC? what?);
  4. aware what will happen if the product or service does not meet the established requirements;
  5. aware of how and where records of quality for their product are created and kept.
Most auditors are not expecting every operator to parrot back a "script." They certainly do NOT expect an average operator to be able to tie his specific job functions to a clause in the ISO Standard. If the operators do sound "scripted," some auditors start letting suspicions and conspiracy theories derail the audit.

In short, I feel the question is appropriate, valid, and can be answered. Jim Wynne, Randy, Jane B., Andy N., Marc, Harry,
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]and others[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] have all answered in some way that the auditor's action is NOT fixed, but suited to the situation as found by the auditor.

[/FONT]
 

Brizilla

Quite Involved in Discussions
#57
Jane, you will appreciate that there can't be a term like 'individual auditee' at the first place. An 'auditee' is an 'organization' and an 'organization' can't be an 'individual' (by any reasoning and in any language) but a group of individuals.

BTW, this is what the standards say:notme:. But still you can "be fine with your own reasoning"
No, I don't.
Yes, there can and there is.

As I said: good luck with that approach.
:lmao:
au·di·tee [ àwdi t ] (plural au·di·tees) (Mirriam-Webster Dictionary)
noun Definition:
Somebody or something being audited: a person or organization that is being audited.

organization
group of people and facilities with an arrangement of responsibilities, authorities and relationships

EXAMPLE Company, corporation, firm, enterprise, institution, charity, sole trader, association, or parts or combination thereof.

So if an organization is made up of a group of people, then anyone you interview is representing the QMS of the company. Each individual is therefore an "auditee" and is representing the organization as a whole. You would separate the whole organization audit "auditee" from each area or individual responsible for certain processes 'individual auditee' to make easier and more understandable when describing the process.

Not recognizing this seems to be for more dramatic effect than anything else.
:thanx:
 
S

samsung

#60
Jim & Randy,

I'm sure you don't mean to convey that one shouldn't ask 'simple' questions here and if someone has mistakenly asked it anyway, that shouldn't be replied?
 
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