Correcting Audit Findings

Hi Lindy! Welcome!

So, two things: As long as you aren't doing these corrections actually during the audit, then yes, fine. Also, if you are doing editorial changes to documents which aren't your process(es) and they are being brought up to date with the actual practices, then that's fine too. The key thing here is that as long as it's not YOUR work you are auditing, that's best - unless you can show the audit process has ensured objectivity (factual) and there's no bias (you looked at things you did, maybe 3 - 6 months ago perhaps).

If the audit findings require a different process, then it's best NOT to be involved. BTW, what position is your boss?

 

Only if you see audits through the eyes of the CB - too many internal audits are done emulating the CB process. I can show you much more effective internal audits, I've done for small companies which were worth a ton of money...

 

Happily! And FWIW, I also understand the reaction with CB auditors. I also have had plaudits from them (through my clients' feedback) about my approach...

I really believe we should stop being ruled by these lack luster CB auditors. I heard yet another trainwreck story about an IATF auditor today...

 

inconsistency I understand. Why oh why do you allow someone who has little/no experience of your business, who spends only one or two days in your facility dictate HOW you run your business? Ask someone at a Business School what they'd say to that as a model of business operations...

 

I am also bothered by inconsistency in CB auditors. I often audit a system with previous NCs having been accepted with the barest minimum of corrective action plans, whereas we are required through accreditation to 17021:2015 to:

<<9.4.9 Cause analysis of nonconformities
The certification body shall require the client to analyse the cause and describe the specific correction
and corrective actions taken, or planned to be taken, to eliminate detected nonconformities, within a
defined time.
9.4.10 Effectiveness of corrections and corrective actions
The certification body shall review the corrections, identified causes and corrective actions submitted
by the client to determine if these are acceptable. The certification body shall verify the effectiveness
of any correction and corrective actions taken. The evidence obtained to support the resolution
of nonconformities shall be recorded.>>

CBs have procedures, but application is as wide as the river Nile and there is no successful program to "calibrate" auditors that I've seen. But don't blame it on the auditor; the documentation is supposed to go through a review and it is at that point that management can exert its influence.

 

I have rarely seen internal audits that were worth the paper they were printed on. 9.2.1 says internal audits will be conducted to determine if the QMS is (b) effectively implemented and maintained. This could be from a number of reasons, but the truth is that value-added auditing (while verifying conformance with the standard at the same time) is not easy. Persons who are thrown into those roles too often do not understand how to audit for value or discover underlying issues.

Corrective actions are worse, in many cases repeating the symptom and failing to address cause(s) that could enable the problem to repeat or occur elsewhere (10.2.1(b).

The auditor in question isn't here to defend himself, so it is easy to beat up on him. We do have the right to require specific types of responses - and rightfully so. That said, I do ask my clients to produce thoughtful, meaningful corrective actions that will, we dare to hope, avoid a recurrence because repeating nonconformities in 3rd party audits get escalated almost by default. I suppose someone out there is complaining about me too.

 

What standard are you being audited to? I audit to 5 standards and have not once seen an 8D required for corrective action.

 

The "iceberg" principle...