1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hello and Welcome to The Quality Forum Online...Continuing in the spirit of People Helping People !
    Dismiss Notice
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.
  1. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    837
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    With the 2015 version of the standard looming, there appears (to me anyway) to be a lot more emphasis on the role of senior management (aka leadership) in setting the direction of the management system. From the "context of the organization" to RBT to knowledge and beyond. Not all of these things require documentation, either, from the actual ISO standard.

    So, how do we as auditors feel about auditing what people say and can talk about? Without a document to reference? Will we encounter people who will tell us we misheard/misunderstood what was said? Will we have to read them their "Miranda rights" at the start of the audit? "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say may be used as the basis of a non-conformity"...
     
  2. David Bradley

    David Bradley Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2015
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    Michigan
    even now, I hear of auditors who want written proof (such as a written test) to ensure folks do understand the quality policy.
     
  3. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    837
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Can those auditors read "Exit"? So they can find their way out?
     
    MCW8888 likes this.
  4. Eric Twiname

    Eric Twiname Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Northeast USA
    A good topic, Andy.

    As mentioned quite a few times...I am an auditee, so view things from that side of the equation.

    It strikes me that when things are 'required', but documentation of them is not, that there is quite a bit more emphasis put on the auditor during the closing meeting.
    To the point that it might even be beneficial to have multiple shorter "closing meetings"...one after each segment or area audited.

    Discussion, specifically around any actual or perceived NC's in that area can thereby be addressed with all of the players present...I would think that this could easily avoid any of the 'he said/she said' and straighten things out for both parties.

    Just thinking out loud...
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  5. Bazinga

    Bazinga Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, Mi
    I would agree with you Eric. I am also coming from the auditee side. Especially if there is an NC in question then have the short closing meeting. If there weren't any issues then you wouldn't need a closing meeting for that section.
     

Share This Page