1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice
You must be a registered member in order to post messages and view/download attached files in this forum.
Click here to register.

Your advice, please

Discussion in 'ISO 19011 - Auditing Management Systems Guidelines' started by Andy Nichols, Nov 9, 2020.

  1. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Good question, Tony! As of today January 1, the auditor still hasn't delivered his audit report! I can't help but see the irony of a QMS auditor who himself has a) no concept of an effective QMS, b) doesn't follow his own management process(es) and c) has no concept of customer satisfaction. The person should quit and the CB which allows this to happen, suspended.

    I believe he did make some comment about the internal audit, but, to be frank, he's so far from even being close to competent - experience shows - his comments aren't worth the breath he expends...
     
  2. Eric Twiname

    Eric Twiname Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Northeast USA
    Absolutely best kind of Surveillance auditor IMO.

    If you are the internal auditor...fix the stuff, highlight the stuff that needs fixing, consult on best practices, and submit your bill knowing you did a good job.

    The most important role in any QMS is Top Management.
    The second most is the employee pool as a whole following the QMS.
    The third most important is the INTERNAL Auditor who checks whether or not there's a crack in the dam.
    Surveillance auditor is a complete waste of time, good or bad...why in the world are you getting worked up over him?
    Ain't no way you're gonna fix the world...fix the company that hired you and relax...
     
  3. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Your cynicism about the world of certification is noted, Eric. However, you have only one experience (fewer than a handful of actual implementations) whereas I see this going on weekly. I'm not getting "worked up", I'm communicating that such behaviors are unacceptable so that those who do want the bar raised - and get value for the money they spend - have some idea of what's unacceptable. Please feel free to sit back and accept poor performance if your organization is certified by such poor audit practices. As a Quality Professional my goal is continual improvement - including that of such poor suppliers who are ripping off their customers, while others are held to a higher level of performance.
     
  4. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    1,054
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    The client should report this to the CB. If they just ignore this, then the client and the CB auditor deserve each other.
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  5. Eric Twiname

    Eric Twiname Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Northeast USA
    Methinks our goals are the same, Andy...but our focuses (foci?) are not the same.
    I do not accept poor performance WITHIN MY ORGANIZATION. You do not accept poor performance within OR WITHOUT your organization (or those that engage you).

    I do not see the value in trying to fix/raise the bar/hold accountable/etc. the organization that holds a level of authority over what some see as a necessary piece of paper.
    Regardless of how much we pour down that hole, it doesnt get any shallower.
    So I spend my time WITHIN, because smart and talented folks yourself have been fighting to improve the WITHOUT for years...and the hole isnt getting shallower, it's getting deeper. (ie. things are worse, not better).
    I would rather maintain excellence WITHIN, and step around the hole.
    Thus my high regard and high value placed on INTERNAL auditing...to catch and fix the stuff WITHIN.
     
  6. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Understood, Eric and very laudable. The difference is that instead of adopting an "isolationist" approach, the world of ISO Certification has cast a mantle over many (small) businesses which pay handsomely for that piece of paper to maintain their position in the supply chain. Like it or not, it helps them avoid countless (and often worthless) customer audits. The fly in that particular ointment is that they are being awarded a certificate which SHOULD hold them to a minimum level of compliance and - with a QMS which is 20 years out of date (yes, based on the 2000 version) this basic level of compliance isn't there, yet the hold a 2015 certificate. This particular (incompetent) auditor allowed this client to slip and slide by over 2 decades! Whatever way you look at it, it needs to be fixed - happily, the client does (now) understand what they have to do (the previous QA mgr is gone) and they are effectively starting over.

    If you were driving down the road and were regularly written a ticket for 5 over, when you saw others getting away for 5/10/15 over, you'd be ticked and would want to change it so save your sanity. The only difference is you don't see the others getting away with it...
     
  7. Eric Twiname

    Eric Twiname Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Northeast USA
    ...and I think that may be the core (or one of the cores) where our experiences differ dramatically.
    I have not seen a SINGLE avoided audit. I've heard people 'promise' them, but it never really happened.

    If having the cert by going through one "good" audit avoided 5+ customer audits, I would likely think more in line with you. I've said that before on a similar discussion we've had.
    Since I have seen ZERO avoided customer audits, I would rather the added on surveillance audit be as blasé as possible and over quickly at minimum cost.

    My outlook on this whole thing comes strictly from cost benefit analysis...not cynicism (though I understand why it looks like cynicism).
    No matter how thorough, professional or responsible the CB surveillance audit is or will be, customers still come and audit for themselves anyway since they think that ISO/IATF requires them to do so.
    Thus the surveillance audit is cost without benefit. No wonder I think they are worthless. Where is the hole in my logic?

    Sounds like Matthew 20:1-16. No, I wouldn't be ticked...I would slow down...but that's me.
     
  8. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    There will (always) be some industries with some (key) customers who have departments who can justify their existence (rightly or wrongly) doing audits of suppliers. Certification was never meant to replace the need for product-knowledgeable SQEs who would evaluate critical products and processes at suppliers. However, the vast majority of the rest of the supply chain, holding a certificate is supposed to obviate the need for supplier development which can be an expensive exercise in selection - it's supposed to attest to basics being in place. But instead of customers pushing the CBs to do a better job, when suppliers don't have good performance, they simply audit the supplier! D'oh!
     
  9. Eric Twiname

    Eric Twiname Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Northeast USA
    Totally agree with all of that...I knew there was common ground there somewhere !

    Its this piece, and the reaction to it where we seem to part ways significantly...
    "Supposed to" has no home here...it either does, or it doesn't...and it doesn't...

    So I am left with the two paths:
    - Tell/cajole/convince my customer to fix an industry-wide issue
    - Go around the issue as much as possible (cost/benefit)

    I've obviously chosen the latter...also via cost/benefit analysis.
     
  10. Eric Twiname

    Eric Twiname Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Northeast USA
    ...and, FWIW...
    I've received 100% marks on supplier assessments (by snail mail, of course) on the same day as the customer audits...

    Supplier audits have no relation to "when suppliers don't have good performance". Suppliers audit whether you do a good job or not...so what's the point of an outside agency?
     
  11. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    722
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    USA
    The ISO Technical Committees try to control quality through the accreditation scheme. The rules they run to (MD documents) can dictate amount of time spent on site, and Accrediting Bodies do witness audits in support of the goal to confirm the audit process and auditor competency meet expectations.

    Supplier audits don't get any of that scrutiny and oversight, and are likely to focus more on the customers' treatment of our product. Customer auditors may ask for things that the 3rd party auditors cannot, in terms of prescriptive approaches to process.
     
  12. Eric Twiname

    Eric Twiname Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Northeast USA
    Jen...I think I understand (though likely not) what you're saying...but I'm having trouble connecting it to the recent back and forth between Andy and I.
    Likely my failing...please be more specific on how this ties in...
     
  13. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    722
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    USA
    I am not confident that I could tie in with a back-and-forth as extensive as what you and Andy have here.

    Here and elsewhere, Andy has done a very good job of highlighting shortcoming of 3rd party auditors, CBs and ABs; mostly auditors I think. I have now been auditing 2nd party, after 7 years of 3rd party, but my exposure to 2nd party is less. I can offer that 2nd party has no obligation to audit on a set frequency when supplier evaluation can be done on other factors, so some suppliers can go several years without an audit. Also, there's no separate oversight or control of the 2nd party audit process, including auditor competence.

    Some auditors and audit programs are better than others; better run, more rigorous. It is hard to be able to say why use one (3rd vs. 2nd) versus the other. I can only point that out, plus agree with Andy about the variation in auditing. I have seen a supplier get 8 nonconformances issued right about the same time as passing a 3rd party ISO audit with no nonconformances. Yes, it is frustrating from my having worked on the inside of both now, and asking who was the CB issuing the certificate and replying "Mmm hmm" in an instant recognition of how that could have happened. It still looks like the Wild West out there sometimes, in my view more so with 2nd party still.
     
    Eric Twiname and Andy Nichols like this.