What will ISO 19011 replace?

[s_warin]

what will ISO 19011 will replace?

ISO 19011 is published by ISO on 2002 October 2. This International Standard replaces many standards.
ISO 19011 replaces ISO 10011-1, ISO 10011-2 and ISO 10011-3 in the ISO 9000 family and ISO 14010, ISO 14011 and ISO 14012 in the ISO 14000 family.

 

[eee]

Hi, Jim. What is your pessimism about? I wonder, was there any discussion of this danger ("kiss of death" for effectiveness of IA) on the Cove?

 

[s_warin]

Please give us the reasons, Jim.

Why kiss the death? Jim, please give us the reasons. Your ideas sound very interesting.

 

[s_warin]

See more on NO INTERNAL AUDIT NECCESSARY

Dera readers,
Please read more on No Internal Audit Necessary by Jim Wade at ISO 9001:2000 in this Cove.

 

[M Greenaway]

Jim

How does ISO9001 now specify audits against what it used to specify for audits ?

 

[M Greenaway]

Jim

Thanks, I have actually read the old and new standards.

The main difference I saw was it is now explicitly stated that internal audits are conducted against the requirements of ISO9001, where in the 1994 standard this was only implied.

However 'best practice' always said to audit against the standard, so although we now have clarity in the standard not much has really changed.

As for auditing processes, as opposed to activities - this sounds again like another battle of semantics brewing

 

[Aaron Lupo]

Jim Wade said:

Another example: formerly we had to audit activities, now we are encouraged to audit processes.

rgds Jim

Jim maybe the way you were trained was to audit activities, I was trained to audit the processes.

 

[M Greenaway]

Jim

What are you on about ?

The 1994 standard talked of conducting internal audits to 'verify whether quality activities and related results comply with planned arrangements and to determine the effectiveness of the quality system.'

i.e. not just compliance, but equally effectivenes - now where does your argument stand against this ??

 

[Randy]

I agree with my ol' Brit bud Jim here on much of what he's saying. I teach both QMS & EMS Internal Auditor courses for a couple of the major providers here in the states. A good majority of the material deals with what I believe to be 3rd party/registration specific stuff. Internal auditors and audits, to me anyway, should have a different focus than the 3rd party/registration types.

When teaching, I shun from the phrase "non-conformance" as much as possible. I focus on trying to develop the understanding that the IA process not only should be, but must be a value added, positive event for the organization. I use "opportunity for improvement" as another way of saying something isn't right or may not be happening the way it should be.

There are different dynamics to the internal audit process than the external one and a paradigm shift must take place to gain the realization of it.

Jim, I can't come to Jolly Old Engalnd right now, but I am definitely interested in what you have.

 

[M Greenaway]

I beleive the only difference is that internal audits are far better mainly because they can go deeper due to having more time available, and probably an existing understanding of systems that means they can short cut a lot of the traditional pre-amble you get at a surveillance visit.

The audit criteria for both is however, in my opinion, exactly the same.