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.

Help!

Discussion in 'ISO 19011 - Auditing Management Systems Guidelines' started by Andy Nichols, Sep 27, 2023.

Tags:
  1. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,110
    Likes Received:
    2,562
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I found on line an "evaluation" guide, for use by "audit teams" issued by the IAQG (International Aerospace Quality Group). https://lnkd.in/ghtzUx7p

    In part, it includes a huge amount of information to be considered which isn't even close to being what's taught in an auditor course...

    How can this be reasonable if:
    a) an implementing organization is being held to a more detailed set of requirements than AS 9100D/ISO 9001 states, and
    b) auditors (especially internal auditors) are not required to be competent to evaluate to these requirements?
     
    Andy Nichols, Sep 27, 2023
    #1
  2. yodon

    yodon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    42
    I'm not in Aerospace and don't know the standard but this is an interesting discussion. I took a quick look at the guidance. It does say:

    This guidance is not intended to add to, subtract from, or in any way modify the stated requirements, but to provide examples and thought stimulation i.e. “things to consider”, when asking questions and identifying objective evidence.

    It seems to me that they are trying to explain the intent of the clauses (and from which you can see if the intent is being met).

    The "Context of the Organization" clause is challenging (based on discussion forum posts) and they make an attempt to give guidance on "things to consider." They probably go overboard by mentioning specific tools (PEST, PESTLE, etc.).

    I think an auditor could use this as (per the statement above) a thought stimulator and a means to have more meaningful discussions (than "show me proof that ..."). Again, I only took a very quick look, but I can see some utility.
     
    yodon, Sep 28, 2023
    #2
  3. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    62
    These are the "secret documents" that drive us users insane. An issue comes up, we say where the heck is that, and out comes the secret doc showing us what it "means," etc. Now I would hope most 3rd party auditor training would be similarly modeled giving it's students "things to consider." Consistency between auditors would be very helpful.
     
    Golfman25, Sep 28, 2023
    #3
    Andy Nichols likes this.