What would you give up to prove conformity and honesty?

[Ka Pilo]

Records Custodian took an Absence Without Leave. He was not able to hand-over some records. Unfurtunately, the record that an Auditor was looking for was part of said records that need to be turned over.

Supervisor (auditee) said he is certain that there was an inspection happened and batch number of product was indicated in the Monitoring Form, which the auditor wants to see, but they (auditee/area responsible) still have to look for it. Supervisor has promised to cut one egg if a batch number of product of a certain transaction was not indicated. Obviously the auditee simply used a metaphor to emphasize honesty. He requested at least 2 working days to submit said record. Do you think that kind of auditee's bargaining skill acceptable?

 

[michaelrm]

From my point of view I can see no issue

 

[ScottK]

Records must be retrievable. There is no bargaining in this.
I don't find two days an acceptable amount of time to retrieve a quality record.
This tells me that there are issues with training and cross training. There should always be a back up. If I was an auditor I would dig into the training records for document and record control.

I would be far more forgiving if a record was simply misplaced.

 

[somashekar]

Records Custodian took an Absence Without Leave. He was not able to hand-over some records. Unfurtunately, the record that an Auditor was looking for was part of said records that need to be turned over.

Supervisor (auditee) said he is certain that there was an inspection happened and batch number of product was indicated in the Monitoring Form, which the auditor wants to see, but they (auditee/area responsible) still have to look for it. Supervisor has promised to cut one egg if a batch number of product of a certain transaction was not indicated. Obviously the auditee simply used a metaphor to emphasize honesty. He requested at least 2 working days to submit said record. Do you think that kind of auditee's bargaining skill acceptable?

A process must not be person dependent but system dependent. You seem to have no system in place to get records retreived when necessary, let alone audit.
The audit just has found out this by an evidence
If this is systamatic in nature it is a bigger problem that you have to work on.

Do you think that kind of auditee's bargaining skill acceptable?

Sorry, not acceptable.

 

[RoxaneB]

I would not stop an audit because a record could not be found...however, if the auditee required 2 days to find the record AND the audit was still on-going, I would accept the record as evidence to the original issue but I'd have new concerns regarding training, designates and the records management process overall.

What would have happened if this was a customer asking for a record as evidence in a legal or high-priority issue? Do you think the customer would accept a 2-day wait period?

 

[somashekar]

I would not stop an audit because a record could not be found...however, if the auditee required 2 days to find the record AND the audit was still on-going, I would accept the record as evidence to the original issue but I'd have new concerns regarding training, designates and the records management process overall.

What would have happened if this was a customer asking for a record as evidence in a legal or high-priority issue? Do you think the customer would accept a 2-day wait period?

Records shall remain legible, readily identifiable and retrievable.
....from the ISO9001
Records Custodian took an Absence Without Leave.....or with leave, or resigned from the organization..... still records shall remain legible, readily identifiable and retrievable.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Records Custodian took an Absence Without Leave. He was not able to hand-over some records. Unfurtunately, the record that an Auditor was looking for was part of said records that need to be turned over.

Supervisor (auditee) said he is certain that there was an inspection happened and batch number of product was indicated in the Monitoring Form, which the auditor wants to see, but they (auditee/area responsible) still have to look for it. Supervisor has promised to cut one egg if a batch number of product of a certain transaction was not indicated. Obviously the auditee simply used a metaphor to emphasize honesty. He requested at least 2 working days to submit said record. Do you think that kind of auditee's bargaining skill acceptable?

It's not at all apparent (to me, at least) what question is being asked here. I look at the thread title, the question that forms the last sentence of your post, and the mystifying bit about egg-cutting and I'm lost. Can you clarify your question?

 

[Jim Wynne]

Records shall remain legible, readily identifiable and retrievable.
....from the ISO9001
Records Custodian took an Absence Without Leave.....or with leave, or resigned from the organization..... still records shall remain legible, readily identifiable and retrievable.

What's the time limit between request and retrieval?

 

[RoxaneB]

Records shall remain legible, readily identifiable and retrievable.
....from the ISO9001
Records Custodian took an Absence Without Leave.....or with leave, or resigned from the organization..... still records shall remain legible, readily identifiable and retrievable.

I am not questioning the standard. I am, in fact, adhering to it. As Jim asked, what is the time limit between requesting a record and retrieving it for presentation? 5 minutes? 30 minutes? 1 business day? 2 business days? Does it depend on the record being retrieved?

What I am questioning, however, is the effectivess of the Original Poster's system for records management. If, for example, a customer was requesting a record for a high-priority issue, would the organization (or the customer) accept a 2-day retrieval time? Many would not...in my opinion. Common sense does imply that 2-days is perhaps contrary to use of the of the word "readily" in the Standard.

The organization's process for records management could use some improvement, that is a given...but the actual finding is still subject to being defined.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I am not questioning the standard. I am, in fact, adhering to it. As Jim asked, what is the time limit between requesting a record and retrieving it for presentation? 5 minutes? 30 minutes? 1 business day? 2 business days? Does it depend on the record being retrieved?

What I am questioning, however, is the effectivess of the Original Poster's system for records management. If, for example, a customer was requesting a record for a high-priority issue, would the organization (or the customer) accept a 2-day retrieval time? Many would not...in my opinion. Common sense does imply that 2-days is perhaps contrary to use of the of the word "readily" in the Standard.

The organization's process for records management could use some improvement, that is a given...but the actual finding is still subject to being defined.

I think the adjective "readily" modifies "identifiable" but not "retrievable." I think this not only because of sentence structure, but because there might well be times (for example) when records have been archived off-site and can't be immediately retrieved, but are indeed retrievable.

I agree with you about effectiveness, though, if there's even an issue here.