![]() |
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums ![]() |
The New Elsmar Cove Forums![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
Author | Topic: Audits Before Assesment |
CarolX Forum Contributor Posts: 108 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Perhaps this question has been asked before - so my appologies in advance.... I interviewed a registrar yesterday and he stated that we must audit all of the ISO elements before we can be certified. Where is this requirment stated, or is it implied in some way? This is how my procedures are set-up right now. Management reviews quality system on a weekly and monthly basis. From these reviews, quartly audits will be scheduled. I beleive this satisfies the requirements for internal audits. Comments anyone .... or an old thread I can read-up on? IP: Logged |
barb butrym Forum Contributor Posts: 637 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() why on earth would you want a registrar's auditor in without a full round of audits being done? Anyway..its a registrar specific clause that I believe 99.99999% of them adhere to. It would be a waste of time and expense to come in if a company had not audited their own system for compliance first...sure would lead me (with my auditiors hat on) to look for more signs of a lack of commitment to the project if a company even suggested that they don't need to do a complete round before the registrar comes in...... As a consultant, my companies do several rounds before the registration audit is scheduled. IP: Logged |
Alf Gulford Forum Contributor Posts: 60 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Only a comment. I've had two different registrars tell me the same thing and, even though it may be a 'registrar requirement' rather than ISO, it made sense to me. How else could I have gone into a pre-assessment with any assurance that our bases were covered? IP: Logged |
Jim Biz Forum Wizard Posts: 275 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() quote: Nope - not "spelled out" in the standards - as well as the "implied requirement" of auditing every element/procedure/system doc. every year (on the basis of importance of course). And the implied requirement from our particular registrar that we ask the same internal audit questions based on specific standards statements for each sentence/a.b.c.d.... task-line in the standards - every year. (which IMHO is a bit overboard)BUT I do agree with Barb - even though it isn't written "clearly stated" (out in the open) it is a good management/registrar practice under the current version. Our external auditor did indicate recently though that the "methods of registration auditing" would be undergoing a change with the new FDIS write-up. Regards [This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 07 September 2000).] IP: Logged |
Rick Goodson Forum Wizard Posts: 102 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() I am in agreement with everyone else that it is certainly good practice even though not required. With regard to the 2000 version, and by reference the 1994 version, Cianfrani, Tsiakals and West make an interesting statement in their new book (ISO 9001:2000 Explained ISBN 0-87389-481-2). "It is now clear" [2000 version] "that audits are to be carried out periodically. Thought this was implied before, it was not clearly stated. A on-time set of audits to comply with ISO 9001 in order to obtain registraion is not sufficient." IP: Logged |
Jim Biz Forum Wizard Posts: 275 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Who was it that said recently "just to put the cat in with the pedigons?" "PERIODICALLY" is CLEAR? IP: Logged |
Laura M Forum Contributor Posts: 299 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() quote: What exactly does management review weekly and monthly? Effectiveness of quality system needs to be a part of management review. Wouldn't you use internal audits for that data? IP: Logged |
Randy Forum Wizard Posts: 228 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Around here periodically means within the last millinium. IP: Logged |
CarolX Forum Contributor Posts: 108 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Barb - If I have done my job completely, my procedures should describe exactly how we are doing things now. My "proof" would be, how are we doing it a year from now? That is when I feel an audit is much more effective. Jim - I concur - periodically means just that. What ever is neccessary, along with the evidience of review to back it up. Laura - weekly review of inspection results, customer returns, and customer contacts. Monthly review of scrap and rework. Our field is much to competative to allow internal audits to be truly helpful to us. Lots to think about .... thanks everyone for your input. IP: Logged |
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() A full found of internal audits (system compliance to ISO 9001) has been a 'standard' registrar requirement for a number of years. The value depends on the company -- sometimes it's not a 'real' issue because the focus on the systems and more during the implementation is often sufficient. More telling is when a registrar hits you during the registration audit for something that they should have spotted during document review or the pre-assessment. But - I do see these early internal audits as a learning function and I do agree they can be (and typically are) helpful. In some companies they are, in my opinion, quite necessary. I wouldn't do an implementation without a complete round of internal audits late in the project either by me or the company. > "PERIODICALLY" is CLEAR? I agree. I don't see this as a change at all from the 1994 version. > This is how my procedures are set-up right now. Management reviews Management review is required to review the results of internal audits but is not related to internal audits (can't substitute for). > Barb - If I have done my job completely, my procedures should describe Audits are supposed to prove people are following your procedures and that your systems work. I'm not sure how you're linking procedure content with "..how we're doing it in a year...' Procedures do change and to some extent it is expected (continuous improvement?) that many will change over a year. So - whether or not you're doing something the same way next year as you are now is a non-issue. I have not been through an implementation where everyone was following procedures as written. Internal audits are supposed to root these people out. > Our field is much to competative to allow internal audits I would like to hear your reasoning for this statement. IP: Logged |
Kevin Mader Forum Wizard Posts: 575 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() quote: Yipes!! How true, how true............... But there is always time for corrective action. [This message has been edited by Kevin Mader (edited 07 September 2000).] IP: Logged |
Laura M Forum Contributor Posts: 299 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() quote: If you're calling the weekly/monthly management review as the required management review, then I hope you "periodically" look at additional information. This is a review of the data or results of your quality system. Most companies look at that data at similar frequencies, but the required management review should be a much more detailed agenda. I think Marc had a pdf file with a typcial management review agenda. IP: Logged |
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() It's something like Mgmt_rev.xls in the pdf files directory -- Elsmar.com/pdf_files IP: Logged |
CarolX Forum Contributor Posts: 108 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Marc - quote > Our field is much to competative to allow internal audits I would like to hear your reasoning for this statement. Absolutely --- Please do not misunderstand that I am not completely "anti-audit", but at this point, I feel, for our business, it is putting the cart before the horse. I hope that clarifies things a bit.
[This message has been edited by CarolX (edited 08 September 2000).] IP: Logged |
barb butrym Forum Contributor Posts: 637 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() that theory certainly goes against my grain...but, hey, it takes all kinds to run the world....who is to say what works for you IP: Logged |
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() You have not made a case for internal audits not being 'effective' or 'helpful' for you. You have simply said you can't afford them or consider them as not cost effective. Those are quite different issues. If you follow these people so closely you should integrate this aspect of your company systems into internal audits. Sounds like you're pretty much doing the same thing. Yup - you'll have paper work to provide evidence. The question becomes, if Fabricating Freddy down the street can do it for $.05 cheaper, why is this? Might even be that Fabricating Freddy 's owner takes less out of the business and thus can afford to keep prices lower than yours. Is Fabricating Freddy 's registered to ISO? Do your customers require you to be ISO? Maybe your sales force should find customers who do not require ISO if Fabricating Freddy 's do not. I'm not hyping internal audits - my belief is a company should not need them. But then there is reality... ISO requires them. Period. You don't have a choice if you want to register. It is not a situation where you can exclude elements of compliance because for one reason or another you don't like the requirement. How you do this is up to you. On the other hand you can buy an outside 'internal audit'. I do them for a few companies. One company of about 40 people takes me about 6 hours one day a year on-site. If you are complaining about the 'cost' of internal audits, I assure you it will be the least of your fixed costs going into ISO 9001. IP: Logged |
Jim Triller Forum Contributor Posts: 26 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() When conducting an assessment auditors are evaluating the effectiveness of the fully implemented management system. In order to demonstrate a fully implemented internal audit process all elements must have been audited and records maintained as objective evidence. IP: Logged |
Al Dyer Forum Wizard Posts: 622 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() I agree with Jim, Only when a system is fully implemented with documented effectiveness should the formal registration process begin. By doing this all employees are aware of the system and believe in its effectiveness. When all personnel are on board and know what to expect, the registration process will not be overwelming and the usual stress levels will be greatly reduced. ASD... IP: Logged |
CJacobsen Forum Contributor Posts: 48 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Perhaps I missed something, but the FDIS of 9001:2000 states this: Section 8.2.2 Internal Audit Where does PERIODICALLY come in? It is only a statement by someone in a book. The full section of the FDIS, 8.2.2 seems pretty clear it is not a periodical function, but a well planned and defined function. Oh, and to the actual thread: I would not go into a preassessment without a full internal audit first, don't know a registrar that would (I agree with a lot of what has been stated as to the why of this), and when contracted for a job, an internal audit is almost a requirement for me for certain scopes of work. Either I perform one, they perform one or one has been performed (and well documented) recently. How can you assess the current status - of readiness or compliance or effectiveness or level of current implementation if you don't have some sort of benchmark to start from? Can't pull the cart unless the horse is harnessed properly. ------------------ IP: Logged |
CarolX Forum Contributor Posts: 108 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Thanks all for your input. Truly appreciated the discussions from different points of view. Carol IP: Logged |
Paulh unregistered |
![]() ![]() ![]() Excellent discussions here folks! I am an Internal Auditor in the UK (qualified MIIA-UK) and am presently working on an Environmental Audit. Is not the dilema caused by the use of the term "audit", hence we confuse internal audit with quality audit? It seems that the quality audit is performed by the same people who implement the Environment Management System, so there is no independence and objectivity. Also, in the UK, it takes 3years and exams to become a Qualified Internal Auditor, but how long does it take to become a "Quality Auditor". Regards to all from Wales, UK IP: Logged |
All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
![]() ![]() |
Hop to: |
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!