“Mind the Gap”

Although, as research shows, the “process approach” to performing audits is not actually defined anywhere, it is a huge step in the right direction if you witnessed auditors who audited clauses of standards (usually CB auditors). As big an improvement as that was, auditing processes in and of themselves doesn’t tell the whole story and should not be the ONLY way audits are performed.

Since the sequence and interactions of processes (of the QMS) are important to effectiveness, these “gaps” between processes should also be audited.

 

I am interested to know which CB auditors you have observed auditing to the clauses.

That being said, I can offer we are in fact held to a requirement to audit all clauses although use the process audit method while doing so. It's possible, but requires discipline and effort. The record keeping helps, which explains why the reports get more complex as time goes by.

If there is some gap found, it is of course a good idea to explore potential breakdowns in process interactions. The "silo effect" in organizations is common. Auditors can, and should point out where dysfunction exists there.

 

History shows that sufficient CB auditors were, such that the IAOB (or whatever they were, back in the day) encouraged the use of “turtle diagrams” as a planning tool for CB audits. This has also permeated the aerospace auditor and other training. Despite that development, the industry has yet to see any substantial improvements which is why the (automotive) OEMs still audit suppliers at a high level and recalls are still prevalent.

 

To further the above comments, the use of the fabled (but as yet undefined) "process approach to auditing", including the promulgation of ill-considered tools, such as the turtle, has in fact conspired against the effectiveness of audits. Audits of a single process are no better than a procedure audit.

 

The turtle is merely a way to capture information.

ABs require CBs to audit processes and often check to make sure all applicable clauses get covered. There is no getting around that. A well-formatted turtle (I adapted it to just a lined sheet to make it easier to use, also added things like communication and traceability/preservation for areas where it applies. The ABs who audited me approve of it and the CBs who reviewed the very similar form I used as Internal Auditor way back when.

While it is true that we are not performing ponies for ABs and CBs, their approval can help with ongoing accreditation/certification so there it is.

What method works best for the audits you perform? What did the ABs say when they reviewed your methods?

 

I'm not a 3rd party auditor. Haven't been for 30+ years. My method not only works very well, my clients use it, as do colleagues and even the occasional CB auditor has been happy to see it?

 

That's great news. What's your method?

 

You didn't read my book on auditing?

 

I don't believe it was the way it was originally intended to be used as "sold" to us by Plexus, the authors. It was intended as a planning tool.

 

It was a long time ago. I don't know if I still have the copy you sent me.

 

That doesn't matter. Plexus wouldn't recognize my format anyway.

 

Yes, however, it's the other auditors who are still using it and not getting the results we were told they would which is the cause for concern. In another discussion - digging in to the use of the thing - it's become apparent it has limitations which don't make it suitable for auditing.

 

I would like to better understand what you mean by this:

What results were not being delivered?
Who said these results were not delivered?
In what context (certification audits?) were these results not delivered?
What was the outcome?