Who's off track, me or my internal auditors?

W

World Nomad

#1
I was recently given the responsiblity of heading up our auditing division because our QM did not like the training results he was getting from our outside ISO training representatives. So I assembled a team to go do an audit on one of our departements. Their scope was to audit the departments on our QM and compliance with it. But when they returned with their audit results they had NC like: Superglue being used that is past expiration date 03/07. Screw, tools and tech manuals left unattended on work bench, machinist box left open and unattended. (although the machinist was in the general area). Production inspector signed in wrong block of inspection form. ( told MY inspector that this could be a documentaton NC but he insisted it was a training NC). Since this was my audit as "being responsible" I really didnt want to cause to many waves with my internal auditors. What should I do, any advise the pro's here would be a great help. Thanks in advance.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Randy

Super Moderator
#2
Go back to the basics...were their findings able to achieve the Objectives of the audit and within the defined Scope and in accordance with the stipulated Criteria? If not then maybe the Objectives, Scope and Criteria were ill defined and your auditors have not been trained to actually audit the system.

To have a NC you must have:

1. a requirement
2. evidence of non-fulfillment of the requirement

The evidence must be:

1. verifiable
2. relevant to the criteria of the audit
3. relevant to the objectives of the audit
4. within the scope of the audit

Sounds to me like they inspected things and not processes.
 
B

Benjamin28

#3
Randy's assessment seems about correct, sounds like they were inspecting things rather than performing a valid process audit. What criteria were they auditing against that they felt inclined to write up expired superglue, is the glue used on product, does this effect product quality?

Perhaps you could go in, do a sampling yourself and relay your findings to them as an example of what you want them to look at. As Randy stated your objectives and scope should be well defined before they initiate an audit. They should be interviewing employees and monitoring processes rather than just inspecting items.

If your audit team is not functioning properly, as it would seem you're suggesting, then you should review their training and work with them to get your internal audits back on track.

Honestly if an audit member came up to me with expired superglue I'd probably break out in laughter, and then I'd ask:

What is this used for?
Does it affect product quality?
Is it a necessary supply?
Do we have MSDS sheets for this?
If it does effect product quality:
Why weren't we controlling the material?
Is it stored in appropriate conditions?
Do we maintain an appropriate level of stock?

The point is, your auditors shouldn't just be looking at items, they should be asking questions which are pertinent to your organization. Sounds to me that they need basic auditor training.
 
#4
You are not off base, those findings are an indication of some deep rooted inadequacies with the auditors, somewhere............:rolleyes:

So, I'd suggest the following:-

Before you do another audit, I'd set each individual an audit 'assignment' and then ask them to prepare as if they were going to do the audit. Give them a clear objectives, audit criteria and scope (as Randy was discussing) and then have the auditor pull together the various information they need to create a checklist.

Review this with them, and have them give a verbal description of what they would be going to 'look for' and 'look at' during their audit and why they want to choose that evidence etc. If the audit isn't focused on the appropriate thing you can try to adjust this focus or exclude them from auditing.

Try to select an auditor who has knowledge of the process, of course, otherwise you're setting yourself up for failure anyway......

This will help to avoid any embarrassment again.

(I have used this technique when I was a supervisor for a registrar)
 

Cari Spears

Super Moderator
Staff member
Super Moderator
#5
Perhaps you could go in, do a sampling yourself and relay your findings to them as an example of what you want them to look at.

Sounds to me that they need basic auditor training.
I agree - show them how to do it. Sounds like they have not been properly introduced to "process auditing".
 

SteelMaiden

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
#6
can you take them on some mini audits and go with them (one or two at a time) to show them what they should be looking for?
 
M

MsHeeler

#7
can you take them on some mini audits and go with them (one or two at a time) to show them what they should be looking for?
That would be my plan. You can train and talk all day, but until a person sees it in action they won't "get it"

We had the "ISO Coordinator" for another plant in during our certification audit, and after the audit was over he stated that aparently he had never seen a real audit before. :bonk:

Being there is the best learning experience.

MsHeeler
 
V

vanputten

#8
I doubt there is any problem with the auditors (the people.) Since we are experts at the Process Approach, and we all understand and agree that most problems are due to process issues, then I think a review of the auditing process and the process to provide awareness, competency and training is in order.

I would absolutely NOT work on the people. I would Check the processes, Act upon any perceived deficiencies, Plan again, and then Do another controlled audit (PDCA.)

If the concentration is on the people and not the tools (processes - method, material, machines, measurement, and environment) provided, then we are not looking at this from a process or system perspective. If the approach is to fix the people, then you have lost the essence of ISO 9001 and / or a process approach.

Regards,

Dirk
 
V

vanputten

#9
By the way, my direct answer to the following question is, "Neither."

Q. Who's off track, me or my internal auditors?
A. Neither. The processes / tools and resources provided are off track.

Regards,

Dirk
 
B

Benjamin28

#10
Very good point Dirk, I absolutely agree, however, we all know that auditing no matter how detailed you make a process, is heavily dependant on the skills of the auditor. If you over detail an audit procedure you'll end up constricting your auditors' actions. With that in mind I would still suggest that training of the auditors is quite valid. Looking at the audit process to identify where to improve it should be performed in conjunction with the training.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Wes Bucey What to think when a major manufacturer goes off the Quality track? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 3
A Can a power Supply be an accessory to a medical device, if it is an 'off-the-shelf' product. IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 3
I Do I need to sign off my annual audit calendar? Internal Auditing 2
Q ISO 13485 7.5.6 Validation - Off the shelf Software ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
A IEC 62304 safety classification, External Controls and off-label use related risks IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 5
R Qualification list of businesses approved to Off-Shore Aerospace work. AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 4
S Study sign off question / responsibilities ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
M Question for Auditors - "Off the Record" Conversation? General Auditing Discussions 14
P Equipment 21 CFR 820.70(g) - User Requirements Document for Off the shelf equipment 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 7
S PSW - Requirements for "off-the shelf" component that has multiply manufacturing locations Off the Shelf Item Manufacturing and Related Processes 1
Ed Panek CE Mark Requirements on Kits (off the shelf product requirements met) CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 2
M Off-Label Use - Clarification of FDA Policy US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
Watchcat Best Regulatory Oversight for Off-Shore Device Manufacturing? Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 1
M Seeking advice regarding use of off-the-shelf (OTS) batteries Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 4
E Stand-by vs. ON/OFF symbol IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
R NRTL - Scope Question - Off-the-Shelf Plug In IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 0
P Qualifying commercial off the shelf (COTS) external suppliers ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 10
SKM.Sunil Detachable parts vs Off the Shelf parts EU Medical Device Regulations 8
M OTS (Off-the-shelf) Medical Device Accessories - Camera EU Medical Device Regulations 1
M Labeling for off-label use - Prevention of off-label use of a medical device 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
C Software validation - Off The Shelf Software - Web hosted ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
T Potential Off-Label Use question 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 5
Q Handling Off-the-Shelf Components 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
Marc Goldsmiths University will take beef products off the menu starting in September 2019 Sustainability, Green Initiatives and Ecology 19
A A purpose of a Stage 1 audit - Off site document review Registrars and Notified Bodies 3
Miner Getting logged off repeatedly Elsmar Cove Forum Suggestions, Complaints, Problems and Bug Reports 13
C Supplier blowing off CAR request Registrars and Notified Bodies 14
W Job Card/Router sign off - Want to go paperless AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 1
L Off the Shelf Software VISUAL ERP system ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
J Supplier controls for consumer-grade off-the-shelf products 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
R Software validation - off the shelf X-Ray Software Quality Assurance 3
R Control of COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) Specifications ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
T Stamps vs Signatures - Stamps as inspection/approval sign-off vs. Initials Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 18
shimonv Off-Label Use of a Medical Device in Japan Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 2
A Cpk Formula seems off, need help!? Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 11
C Do we need to Validate Off the Shelf Software? Manufacturing and Related Processes 5
T Parts Lists - Use of the word "off" against Quantity Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 2
E Information required about changing an off shelf part 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
N Control of stock (Off the Shelf) Non-Conforming Material & Product Tags ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
K UL 6601 - Would an off-the-shelf Android tablet, powered by USB, pass UL 6601? Other Medical Device Related Standards 3
S COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) Validation FDA Requirements Software Quality Assurance 4
D Off-Label Self Promotion - What to do EU Medical Device Regulations 3
T Document Review And Sign Off Second Person Review - FDA Requirements ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
M Opportunity For Improvement - Customer to sign off or approve a new design ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
C Medical Device on/off switch symbolization IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 5
P Connector Tin Plating Peel-off during Soldering Manufacturing and Related Processes 7
E How do you monitor Medical Device Off-Label use by Customers & Medical Professionals EU Medical Device Regulations 5
D Hard cut off date for certificates to be issued against ISO 9001:2008? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 17
M Chrysler PSW Sign Off when your product is rated low risk in CQMS IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5
B IEC 60825-1 Class 3R Laser Off-The-Shelf or Custom Label Needed Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 3

Similar threads

Top Bottom