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
- aware of the existence of quality requirements for what they do;
- able to perform their assigned task to meet those requirements;
- aware of how the product or service is determined to meet the requirements (inspection? SPC? what?);
- aware what will happen if the product or service does not meet the established requirements;
- 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]