The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line
The New Elsmar Cove Forums   The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  Auditing
  Audit Checklists

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Audit Checklists
Becky Blosser
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 8
From:Winchester, VA, USA
Registered: Apr 99

posted 22 April 1999 11:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Becky Blosser   Click Here to Email Becky Blosser     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Our QS9000 audit team has been using checklists to perform internal audits. Admittedly, it is difficult to get an adequate, understandable checklist. The auditors must "translate" any checklist we use into terms our employees can understand and relate to our procedures.

Our management rep (a registered lead auditor) has been with the company for 6 months. She wants to stop using any kind of checklist and audit directly from the procedures.

Is this a good idea? Personally, I feel a little uneasy about it and am afraid we will lose members of the audit team (I have expressed this to the management rep). Does anyone have any ideas/suggestions?

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 22 April 1999 11:44 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree with the mgt rep.. canned BS lists are useless.....but a happy medium is a format that allows for the "marked up" procedure along with an audit trail and a check list that ensures that you have addressed all the issues when you are done. The check list is a memory jogger, not a list of questions to ask as written. the auditors need to think on thier feet, if you will...not just walk in with genegric questions...once a question has been asked, and fixed...what value does it have to keep asking it?

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 22 April 1999 11:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
forgot the suggestion part.....
have the auditors develop meaningful questions..if put to them properly, they will embrace the project...if they don't them they didn't really want to audit anyway

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 22 April 1999 11:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
forgot the suggestion part.....
have the auditors develop meaningful questions..if put to them properly, they will embrace the project...if they don't then they didn't really want to audit anyway

IP: Logged

Kevin Mader
Forum Wizard

Posts: 575
From:Seymour, CT USA
Registered: Nov 98

posted 22 April 1999 02:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Kevin Mader   Click Here to Email Kevin Mader     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Becky,

I agree with Barb, have the auditors develop their own working papers. Remember that you are accountable for ALL items, ISO Standard items or your own organization's, that you choose to formalize in you Quality Program. Generic working papers (checklists) will not touch on those subtleties within your Quality Program and are, in my opinion, only suitable for performing a desk study of the QP (suitability audit to ensure that the Standard items are present in the program).

Regards,

Kevin

IP: Logged

Becky Blosser
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 8
From:Winchester, VA, USA
Registered: Apr 99

posted 22 April 1999 03:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Becky Blosser   Click Here to Email Becky Blosser     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks for the backup. I agree that the canned checklists are not versatile enough to meet most needs. Our audit team has been trying to get the Management Rep to sit down with us and come up with our own questions which would blend the standard with our procedures. We feel that a checklist is a good idea from the point of view of keeping us from going off on a non-productive tangent. However, she wants to avoid using ANY checklist at all, which I feel is not a great idea.

IP: Logged

Kevin Mader
Forum Wizard

Posts: 575
From:Seymour, CT USA
Registered: Nov 98

posted 22 April 1999 05:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Kevin Mader   Click Here to Email Kevin Mader     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Checklists have their advantages to. They create continuity from audit to audit, which that to has both up and down sides (they may become obsolete).

IP: Logged

ckenn
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 1
From:dexter,mi USA
Registered: Apr 99

posted 23 April 1999 02:12 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ckenn   Click Here to Email ckenn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Right now we are using the checklists straight from the QSA for the first round of internal audits with 3rd edition in place. The exception are follow up audits that need the verification of effectiveness of any new level two or three documentation that have been put into place. Does this sound acceptable?

IP: Logged

Kevin Mader
Forum Wizard

Posts: 575
From:Seymour, CT USA
Registered: Nov 98

posted 23 April 1999 10:10 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Kevin Mader   Click Here to Email Kevin Mader     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It sounds pretty good to me. Just be careful of items that may be present in your level 1 document. You may have some hidden items, especially in your Quality Policy. The QP is often over-embelished containing several key words or phrases that, in reality, should probably not be there.

Regards,

Kevin

Back to the group...

IP: Logged

John C
Forum Contributor

Posts: 134
From:Cork City, Ireland
Registered: Nov 98

posted 23 April 1999 12:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for John C   Click Here to Email John C     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Becky,
I'm pleased to see your management rep standing her ground on this and I suggest you say you are going to ditch the checklists but would like to know her reasons - not to question them, but to learn.
I wouldn't do an ISO 9000 audit on the line and I'm auditing against these requirements since before anyone heard of ISO 9000. The place for ISO 9000 compliance audit is off-line, evaluating the documentation, and this is not a job for someone learning auditing.
So forget ISO 9000. It's not the issue.
The job, on line, is to evaluate compliance with the document. So it becomes a case of asking questions to find out what the auditee knows of the task v the document, do they have access to the document and observing what they do v the document - just three things to remember; Knowledge?, document?, action?
Give them some training in other things to look out for, such as checking training records, housekeeping, defective material, material from previous job, calibration, maintenance, etc. They could write this simple list on their paperwork or on the back of their hand, or make a mnemonic; THEM; Training, Housekeeping, Equipment, Material.
Barb's idea of taking a copy of the procedure is great. I've often done it on product safety audits but never, up to now, on a quality system audit; Then you would need nothing else; no checklist, no standard, no audit trail, nothing. Just write up your mnemonics and go out and write on the procedure your observations and audit trail. Pull off the obs for the report and file the procedure as the audit trail - best solution of all if the procedure is only a few pages or you can select the few you need.
The main thing is to explain to the auditors that they just have to test the requirements of the procedure, write down what they hear and see, do a quick check of their mnemonic list and note down what they see, and then move on. That is all you want. They've no need to worry about doing anything clever. They have enough to do, doing the simple thing well.
Then, as confidence grows, you can direct them to be more incisive - but I can't help with that since I never found the need to progress beyond stage 1.
What is the audit for?
Look at 4.17. Where does it say 'audit against ISO 9000? Nowhere! It says 'verify whether activities comply with planned arrangements' and 'determine effectiveness'.
The observations show whether you have compliance. Effectiveness can only be evaluated by reviewing and analysing results, eg; yield against expectations, yield against previous figures, significance of data collected, etc. Once again, this is not an area for auditors to learn auditing. You need a team with a pretty good experience/skill set for that. And that's not a checklist business either.
We do have a checklist. I opened it at random and found a question dealing with 4.1.2.1a) and it says; "Do you have a procedure which identifies persons responsible to initiate action to prevent the occurance of any nonconformities relating to the product, process and quality system?'
It goes on like that through 4.1.2.1 b, c, d, e, and then on to 4.1.2.2, 4.1.2.3, 4.1.3 and then into 4.2. Can you believe it? I'm not suggesting that your checklists are like that, but that's the principle, isn't it?'
People are not all stupid. Most people will have a pretty poor impression of an auditor who parrots out reams of questions like that - and also a poor impression of the system that drives it, and the 'Quality Pro-fessionals' that implement it and compiled it.
rgds, John C

IP: Logged

John C
Forum Contributor

Posts: 134
From:Cork City, Ireland
Registered: Nov 98

posted 26 April 1999 09:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for John C   Click Here to Email John C     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Becky (cc Al)

On re-reading my submission above, I felt that I had allowed my frustration and annoyance on this particular subject, to show through. I assure you it was not, in any way, meant to be a criticsm of yourself, but was intended to be helpful.
Well, it was Friday evening and everyone gets a bit unstable on Friday evening. Put it down to that and too many years banging my head on a stone wall in the name of quality. I think these cool dudes, Marc and Kevin, etc, are having a calming influence but it may take a little while yet.
Maybe this is a good time to thank Marc and the others for this excellent site. Given the fact that I knew everything when I first found it, it's quite amazing to see how much I have learnt since.
rgds, John C

IP: Logged

Kevin Mader
Forum Wizard

Posts: 575
From:Seymour, CT USA
Registered: Nov 98

posted 26 April 1999 11:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Kevin Mader   Click Here to Email Kevin Mader     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
John,

I liked your answer, particularly where you paraphrased bits of 4.17. This perhaps shoud emphasized? Thanks for the kind words as well. The nice thing at this site is that each of us contributes to the improvement of one another, spawned by good questions and issues raised by each. I do enjoy the learning!

Regards,

Kevin

IP: Logged

Becky Blosser
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 8
From:Winchester, VA, USA
Registered: Apr 99

posted 26 April 1999 05:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Becky Blosser   Click Here to Email Becky Blosser     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
John,

I have to agree with you about some of the checklists - we have been having a great deal of difficulty "translating" them into language our auditees can understand (like English).

What the audit team and I would like to do is to write our own checklists. We see the checklist as a tool to insure that we don't go off on a tangent somewhere and miss a glaring nonconformance. Also, the checklists make great audit records.

I guess I just have a fear of getting rid of the checklists entirely - like working without a net. Also, our consultants relied very heavily on a checklist which strongly emphasized questions from the QS9000 QSA.

Maybe the difference is in our training, since the audit team was trained by our consultant in QS9000 auditing and the management rep is a lead auditor trained by a different firm.

Thanks to all for the advice, and thanks to Marc for providing the forum.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 26 April 1999 08:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I 'recommend' what Barb does - take the procedure, make a copy and use it as your check list markinbg on the procedure what you asked about. File the copy with the audit report.

Using the QSA for an internal audit 'check list' is nuts IMHO.

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 27 April 1999 09:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
thanks marc....
ya know...the QSA could belong to the audit manager (or somebody?), and they periodically review the internal audit findings against it....as a safety net...if that makes you feel better....or as a prep for teh surveillance visit..do a QSA audit...over and above the internal audits.

But certainly not required....if your documents cover the standard, and your audits cover your documents...what more do you want?

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 27 April 1999 10:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I didn't - and won't - go into my diatribe about internal auditing. There are plenty of threads here where I support this method, but as you know - I don't believe most companies have a need to put internal auditors through a Lead Auditor's course (which I believe is the bare minimum) so that they can interpret ISO9000 (much less the quagmire going by the name of QS9000) which is necessary to audit against ISO9000 or QS9000 - which is what the QSA is. An interpretation nightmare in places. Someone in a thread here on the board made me chuckle when he said "QS9000 is as clear as mud."

By the by - I'll blow my horn here. Got this last Friday:

quote:
The audit just finished and everything went reasonably well. They found 10
non-conformities and had several comments but there was nothing that was really
a major problem. There were no problems with the cal lab itself (they did find
some equipment in the machine shop overdue for cal by three years) and went so
far to say that he was very impressed with the cal lab. He did not ask anything
about linearity or any of that sort of stuff. I think the biggest challenge
between now and the registration audit will be to maintain momentum.

Your assessment of us as being ready was on the mark. As I discussed various
items with the auditor, I made mention where your input was used to develop our
procedures. In all cases, he agreed with your interperetations and made the
comment that he felt that the money we paid for you appeared to be well spent.
Thanks!


A registrar saying they spent their money well. I was humbled - not much, but a bit, anyway. As to the 10 minors - well, they know they have 'attention to detail' issues yet to deal with. They did one helluva job, though. A lot of work.

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 28 April 1999 10:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
well done marc....you should toot your horn....feels good when its noticed doesn't it...thats what its all about....doing it right..being good at what you do....

way to go

IP: Logged

SGS
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 6
From:New Madrid, MO, USA
Registered: May 99

posted 10 June 1999 04:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SGS     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I thought I would pass along some checklist advice that has worked very well at my company. Instead of using the canned checklist that was hard to apply to our industry, I developed a checklist based on our level two manual. In one column I have a suggested question (or memory jogger), in the second column I have quoted the actual level II requirement, there is also room for comments and space to check whether or not the requirements was met. This checklist has imporved the quality of our internal audits greatly, and an auditor can show evidence that a requirment was met with a simple checkmark. This type of checklist allows you to use the procedure as a checklist without making "uncontrolled" copies.

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 14 June 1999 07:52 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Do you think 'just a check mark' meets the requirements? Any comments from the group?

IP: Logged

Kevin Mader
Forum Wizard

Posts: 575
From:Seymour, CT USA
Registered: Nov 98

posted 14 June 1999 01:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Kevin Mader   Click Here to Email Kevin Mader     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Barb,

I am skeptical on the value of a simple checkmark. This does not tell me much about the auditor's ability to audit, the process (compliance), and the process effectiveness. I would have to recommend a more comprehensive approach, both for the auditor and the auditing process. I say this without the knowledge of whether or not there is additional supportive documentation gathered during the audit process. I am making a few assumptions here, to beware.

While it appears that SGS has done a thorough suitability audit (desk audit) and made it apparently easier for the auditor to make direct comparisons with the procedural documents, the checklist may infact retard the audit process by steering internal auditors in a specific direction (and probably done unintentionally). This does not lead me to believe that the auditing process is at optimum, and there for not as effective. I must admit that I am not a fan of canned checklists or working papers. I am also not fond of scored checklists or "yes/no" answer formats. I think you need open-ended questions that cause thought (my own projection). If someone is partially compliant, say meeting 4 of 5 points in an element, should they receive a "no"? I don't think that this helps the auditee either. Nothing said about the effort given on the 4 compliant points. This could lead to adverse conditions, i.e. the auditee is turned off of the auditing/ISO process. And this is all done without malice, regardless, and the wrong tempo set. In addition, this also leads to the old stereotypes of auditors of old (policing) and allows old problems with auditing to fester.

I would have to also mention that SGS's approach is quite common. I think that this is because many folks find the auditing process to be tedious, both in audit maintenance and deployment. As a result, audit schedulers end up doing all the work or take the work out of auditing. It is much easier to prepare the checklists yourself and spare your auditors from investing time in audit preparation. Then send them out there to do a quick audit (canned Q&A formats or check-boxes), set a few land speed records. Easy to review, identify the "ugly nasties" and issue CA. What could be better? Perhaps a comprehensive audit program with full management support?

Regards,

Kevin

Back to the group...

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 14 June 1999 03:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
what about a check mark as evidence of audit execution (record).....does not fly for me on the surface.....or any other auditor I know.......Maybe its a registrar quirk....but I have written up companies for that before....how hard depends on what else I see in the audit program and records of the audits. If there is an audit trail that provides evidence I back off... if all I see are check marks, then i find a evidence to show it was not effective, believe me if a company has to resort to just check marks, evidence will be there. I know I am a great advocate of 'do what adds value" BUT I draw the line here.....No trail --- no audit

IP: Logged

Kevin Mader
Forum Wizard

Posts: 575
From:Seymour, CT USA
Registered: Nov 98

posted 14 June 1999 05:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Kevin Mader   Click Here to Email Kevin Mader     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Warning: projection to soon follow.

Doing something half committed often results in waste. If an organization wants to optimize the audit process, they must determine what the inputs are and if the outputs meet the expectations (a registrar's or thier own). Only then can they tailor the process to achieve their goals, save time and money, and keep the integrity of the audit program. These initial steps can not be "short cut" to the dismay of the organization looking only for the short-term gain. Being an advocate for value added is in my opinion correct. I would find a three hour internal audit with audit team formalized working papers and an audit report with plenty of objective evidence more valuable than a 45 minute check off on canned questions. I'm with you Barb. If a trail of objective evidence can't be uncovered and demonstrated in an audit report, hard to say if an audit took place at all.

Back to the group....

[This message has been edited by Kevin Mader (edited 15 June 1999).]

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 14 June 1999 06:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My 2 cents - a check mark doesn't say shit. Either cite specifically what was looked at (the evidence) or there's no evidence there was an audit.

IP: Logged

ALM
Forum Contributor

Posts: 80
From:Philadelphia
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 18 June 1999 10:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ALM   Click Here to Email ALM     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, my audit group does both.

As the "owner" of the Internal Auditing Process, I do have a core group of "canned" questions, (modified from our original registrar's question list) that we use as a base.

Beyond that, I meet with the people who will be the audit team, and we review the procedures that are relevant to the area that we are going to audit. We add to the core question list, issues that are to be evaluated based upon the procedures that are relevant.

This system has worked very well. What we gain from it is is ongoing familiarity with the types of things that an outside auditor will be looking for as well as addressing the specific issues that go on at the facility from day-to-day.

As we move from audit to audit the "added" questions are different. Even if we are looking at procedures that have existed for years, we will either look at specific parts of that procedure (to create different auditable items), or check a look a new/different relevant procedures for a given element.

Bottom line... we have the core questions (or as some have called them "canned" questions) and add to them the Company-specific questions relative to our operations and quality system documentation. We end up with a fresh audit package each audit.

Thanks for allowing me to contribute!

ALM

IP: Logged

Dawn
Forum Contributor

Posts: 245
From:St. Marys, PA
Registered: Sep 98

posted 18 June 1999 07:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dawn   Click Here to Email Dawn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Everywhere I turn I hear value-added auditing.
But I never see anything on the "how" to do it. Any ideas?

IP: Logged

Kevin Mader
Forum Wizard

Posts: 575
From:Seymour, CT USA
Registered: Nov 98

posted 21 June 1999 09:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Kevin Mader   Click Here to Email Kevin Mader     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dawn,

Try using flow charts as part of the audit process. Look for pauses and redundancy in the charts (i.e. did you have to repeat a step or did something remain stagnant)? As a matter of general commenting in the Audit Report, a statement should be made to inform the auditee of your discovery. From there, the auditee may use this information to improve the process, hence making the operation increase in value. Remember that auditors are interested in compliance to the program, but they are also interested in the effectiveness of the program too.

Regards,

Kevin

Back to the group...

IP: Logged

Howard Atkins
Forum Wizard

Posts: 202
From:Israel
Registered:

posted 22 June 1999 01:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Howard Atkins   Click Here to Email Howard Atkins     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
One of the subjects that I have not seen covered here is the fact that checklists show proof of "planning audits".
We write checklists based on our procedures for our own guidance but in our procedure we have written that "according to the auditor's judgement he can ask more or other questions. We then write a report using the questions as headings. The creation of a checklist shows planning and refreshes the auditor on the purpose of the audit. It is also possible to add other questions based on incidents that have happened.

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 22 June 1999 09:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Way back we did one on planning..Marc even has a couple plan things in the PDF ZONE. Things to include on a list are any followup/reviews of past actions from CA/PA, customer complaints, n/c material/process stuff, etc. observations from audits, as well as findings from audit reports (internal and otherwise)...
I typically include alot more in case a re-assignmant of auditors happes during the process, so work is not duplicated..my planning/status check list is /pdf_files/QF317-2.pdf in the pdf zone if you are interested...also include an input space on area check lists for info from the reviews.

Administrator Note: Hyperlink to barb's form added. I like barb's form. I also prefer, and use, copies of procedures as barb was writing about earlier in this thread. When using the 'copy of procedure' method you can come close to the 'check mark' audit, IMHO.

[This message has been edited by admin (edited 12 July 1999).]

IP: Logged

spenceat
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 4
From:England
Registered: Jul 1999

posted 11 July 1999 10:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for spenceat   Click Here to Email spenceat     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have recently started as a QA Manager and one of the first objectives I was asked to do was to produce an Intenal Audit Program.

One of my concerns was what is the best method while auditing a process or function, do I use a standrd set of questions on a checklist or do I use my own initiative.

After reading the above replies, it seems to me the best route forward is to use a procedure, make and ask questions relavant to that process or function and keep as objective evidence.

Since my internal auditing skills are limited, is there any best way of ensuring while using procedures as a form of checklist, the SCOPE of my internal audit schedules is still satisfying ISO requirements?

Andy

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 12 July 1999 02:00 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
there is much todo about that question andy....but let me add my 2 cents here before the group gets fired up.

Perform the audit to the procedures, then that done, answer the canned questions from what you observed/noted while auditing. Your audit trail, over time and experience, will have the details you need to determine whether the System is functioning properly. The audit trail is key. You should be able to recreate..many months later...the situations noted, both conforming and not. That and a cross reference of elements to areas will provide you all the information you need, of course that assumes (arrrrhhh I hate that word)the documentation has covered the shalls in the first place and has been properly cross referenced.

Add to the schedule... the 20 elements, then the scope of taht audit is to review the findings from all the audits in that element..for instance. Training....review all area audits for findings on training issues. I do this best with a report cover sheet (electronic) that has classifiations of findings, those include things like training, traceability, inspection status, stats, doc control, equipment, records, repeat occurrances, previous CAs issued/closed....what ever works, serves a quick reference for Management Review as well. This came from a retention report for the DoD I used to have to do, and adapted it to ISO.

[This message has been edited by barb butrym (edited 12 July 1999).]

IP: Logged

Kevin Mader
Forum Wizard

Posts: 575
From:Seymour, CT USA
Registered: Nov 98

posted 12 July 1999 03:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Kevin Mader   Click Here to Email Kevin Mader     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Andy,

Welcome to the mix! As a suggestion, I would recommend that you read a book on auditing if this is all new to you. I think you will find that the auditing technique is a great way to learn about the organization and quality standards. The book I would recommend is The Quality Audit, by Mills.

Regards,

Kevin

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 12 July 1999 11:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
OH KEVIN....I disagree on the book to read. I think Mills is too deep for the novice, tough to get into....I prefer Sayles. He is easier to follow. And Arter....

IP: Logged

spenceat
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 4
From:England
Registered: Jul 1999

posted 12 July 1999 05:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for spenceat   Click Here to Email spenceat     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have referenced several books and agree with Barb, Sayle seems to be the best read.
i.e. management Audits.

I am already Lead Auditor trained and due to attend the course to become TickIT auditor trained, any advice on this course?

Andy

IP: Logged

Kevin Mader
Forum Wizard

Posts: 575
From:Seymour, CT USA
Registered: Nov 98

posted 12 July 1999 11:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Kevin Mader   Click Here to Email Kevin Mader     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Barb,

I had a feeling that you would recommend Arter. I must admit that I haven't read Sayles or Arter, however I do recall you mentioning that Arter had a hand in creating the ASQs CQA exam. As such, I can't draw a good comparison. Although I did not find Mills to difficult a read, the topic can be somewhat dry. Perhaps I have been reading technical books waaaaaaay to long and my senses have been dulled.

Andy,

Barb is a good source for Auditor Training questions, so I'll leave your question to her.

Regards to both,

Kevin

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 13 July 1999 06:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What course are you taking, and who with?

If its a lead auditor with TickIT focus, it won't be much more than the QSLA was except instead of the standard, it adds TickIT details as well to that portion. So maybe 2 days with some new material mixed in, the rest is the same.

TickIT isn't my expertise......so I have no tips for you, except don't add more into it than is really there....As with everything else, you need facts for a finding....don't be lead down the path...

Kevin...Sayles is really a better read..not that when it gets down to it they say anything different...its just the way they put it across. Haven't read Arter's new release, so I can only go by his first one...which was simple black and white.

Mills is Ok for you serious guys......LOL

BArb

IP: Logged

Kevin Mader
Forum Wizard

Posts: 575
From:Seymour, CT USA
Registered: Nov 98

posted 13 July 1999 07:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Kevin Mader   Click Here to Email Kevin Mader     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
hahaha!!!!! Hopefully not too serious! I like to think I have a good sense of humor.

I read the Wortman study guide as well. I found that tho be a pretty in depth overview but it lacked the detail I was looking for. I selected Mills at random. I guess I could have done worse (or maybe not?).

Back to the group...

Kevin

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 13 July 1999 10:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I had to use Mills for a college auditing course text once...cause Sayles 2nd edition was out of print, and the 3rd wasn't readily available from Quality Press and we ran out of time......what a nightmare.... the information was Ok....and if you are fresh, I suppose the read isn't bad...but the class...like me..had already put in a days work....I had to come up with massive handouts to cover the material cause they just didn't get it from him..in the end we threw the book aside and went with my handouts...tough lesson to learn. So thats why I steer clear of "encyclopedia" type reading... I am a hands on, case study....do it to learn it, get right to the point ...kind of instructor. Roll up my sleeves and get into the mud, if you will. I used Mills for the CQA years ago, and as a look up reference it was fine...but not a straight read....for me.

So you are not a serious type, Kevin? Ha ha.. I bet you have a very serious side when you want to. I guess we all do.....when we hit the tight buttons.

Andy, we aren't helping you here with our book reviews.....what do you need?

barb

IP: Logged

Kevin Mader
Forum Wizard

Posts: 575
From:Seymour, CT USA
Registered: Nov 98

posted 14 July 1999 12:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Kevin Mader   Click Here to Email Kevin Mader     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Barb,

I had to pick the clown face icon as it is more fitting to my informal side (which I try to be in most of the time). You're right on the buttons. I notice that sometimes when I need to turn on the "serious" side, some folks are suprised to see it in me (especially if they have never met me before).

Yes, we are doing the book review thing here. Interesting point that you bring up. As it would be, at the time of my reading Mill's text, I was taking a primer course for the CQA, which was filled with handouts and debate (both of which complimented the reading I think). Perhaps the fact that these events occurred at the same time made the reading easier (?). As I read it from time to time, I don't find the verbiage difficult. Then again, my brain may be fried and I would find cutting the lawn with a pair of hand shears entertaining (LOL).

Regards,

Kevin

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Hop to:

Contact Us | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!


Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!