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.

What is "Input"?

Discussion in 'ISO 19011 - Auditing Management Systems Guidelines' started by Andy Nichols, Apr 4, 2022.

  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"
    To be very honest, there are a few things in ISO 9001 which I don't fully believe are processes... Audits are one of them.
     
  2. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    722
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    USA
    pkfraser, let us not overthink this.

    Some processes take a raw material and send it though transformative treatments that result in a new material or object. Auditing is not like that: its raw material is information that is "processed" in the minds of auditors, to determine if the management system is effective and requirements have been met. Their reporting is the process output.

    We might do the same with a set of requirements that people analyze, then use to create a drawing, a training offering or a service design.
     
    Miner likes this.
  3. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    722
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    USA
    I will be the first to admit that internal audits are too often not planned as cohesive parts of a program. I would place this responsibility at the program manager, who should be overseeing all these parts-that-form-the-whole but don't understand any of it well enough to make it execute effectively and with value.

    I suggest that part of the reason for this is the persistent idea that internal audits are a required box-checking activity, not a value-adding process. I don't think this is due to a shortcoming in Lead Auditor training. No Lead Auditor course will fix that perception in management, in particular in a business community that still favors MBAs whose training and experience very possibly included zero in the type of value that a well-run internal audit program can promote. We are still the "poor cousin" of the QMS.
     
  4. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    722
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    USA
    What is missing that would make Internal Audit a process?
     
  5. 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"
    It's what is missing that makes it not a process...
     
  6. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    722
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    USA
    Would you kindly tell me what is missing that would make Internal Audit a process?
     
  7. 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"
    At a very basic level, an audit is watching someone, let's say by way of example, making scrambled eggs, to check the process was followed (no documentation required) and confirming/reporting that "yes, the processor making scrambled egg was indeed followed and - it wasn't burned, undercooked or scrapped - so it was effective. Watching a process being conducted is a process? Really?
     
  8. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    722
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    USA
    Last I checked (this minute) retained documented information is required from audits.

    So too are audits tasked to verify effectiveness of the quality management system. The box-checking you refer to is all too common, but the standards ask for more.

    Since we have inputs and outputs, a review of documented information, metrics (even if only audits competed on time), a means to ensure internal auditor competency (your training) and there are even likely infrastructure such as software (even if it's MS Office for Word documents or Adobe for .pdfs) and computers involved, we have pretty much all the parts of the turtle diagram.

    What is missing to make this a process?
     
  9. pkfraser

    pkfraser Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2015
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    Aberdeen Scotland
    Jennifer Don't worry, I try to limit excess thinking wherever I can(!) My dislike of the "transformation" definition is because its derivation is exactly what you say, ie raw material being changed into a finished product. No problem in a manufacturing context, but it just doesn't transfer to a service context, even though ISO have tried to make it fit... In your example, the information, or requirements, aren't changed into a different form, they have been used. They are still there the next day after the audit (whereas raw material has gone).

    I agree with your concern with Andy's contention that an audit isn't a process, though, even though my taste in turtles is much the same as for transformations. I suspect that ISO are slowly coming round to seeing a process as "a set of actions started by a trigger event and intended to achieve an objective". So something is still a process if it fails to meet the objective (eg Recruiting Staff is still a process even if you can't find anyone suitable).
     
  10. 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"
    This is true, however, could that also be considered as part of management review, if the "required "results of audits" was verbally delivered for the review? Does there have to be a delineation between audits and management's review which includes the results of audits. If, in the review, management ask the internal auditor, "Were the people observed following the process?" and that was recorded, wouldn't that suffice to meet the 9.2.2 requirements?
     
  11. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    722
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    USA
    I disagree Andy. See 9.2.2 f)
     
  12. 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"
    I suspected as much. That's OK. I'm simply challenging the conventional wisdoms of "we've always done it that way", which prevail in our world of quality management systems and auditing. I prefer NOT to think that way.
     
  13. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    722
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    USA
    The standard's language is obscure in some places, but it's very clear in 9.2.2f).
     
  14. 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"
    It's not what the standard says, it's the way the requirements are put into actions, which is shaping my commentary. "If we always do what we always did, we'll always get..."