Remote Audits vs "Drive By" Audits

It has long been known that many unaccredited or "alternately" accredited (non IAF member) Certification Bodies touted "remote" audits, or audit by mail etc as a cost savings to their clients. With the advent of COVID 19 and a reliance on more and more remote audits, hasn't the IAF undermined its position and any credibility it may have promoted? What now differentiates a remote ANAB Certification Audit from an unaccredited CB audit?

(Of course, I'm not considering accredited audits conducted on-site, by auditors who were "remote" and never left the conference room)

 

I think it's likely Andy, because it really is difficult to do a good remote audit.

I have no frame of reference with the type of remote certification activities done by organizations such as AGS, except for their descriptions about the process. In the case of AGS the description does not say "remote audit" which generally still includes interviews, and even a look around via streaming camera in order to observe conditions as best as we can; AGS says "Documentation Review." I have not yet been witnessed on a remote audit. I know that the IAF has addressed the Covid 19 issue as one of safety for all involved, and that we are still expected to conform to IAF MD 4:2018. Additionally, ISO has posted numerous Resources for those of us who are interested in good practices for maintaining value-added auditing activities.

 

I am supposed to ask for my suppliers' procedures before my audits with them. I have found over the course of many years that such "advance preparation" does not mean much because I do not have a photographic memory. It turns out reading those is a waste of time. Instead, I now ask for a list of procedures and their latest revision numbers. If I see something during an audit that I am concerned about, I then ask for the procedure and the discussion about process proceeds in more depth.

Maybe you can offer the same type of proposal.

Your results may vary.