The training of TS16949 internal auditors - What are the requirements?

What's the use of that, you might ask! Surely, if the instructor cannot participate in the discussion, what the point of paying them to be there?

 

So, to repeat Andy's question, "What's the use of that...what's the point of paying them to be there?" If the trainers cannot train effectively, if they cannot transfer the necessary knowledge, it's a waste of time and money, and the only things gained will be an increased number of questions (e.g., "How does this relate to us?!?!") and an increased sense of frustration (e.g., "Why am I here if the trainer is not speaking the language of our business?") and a potential decrease in faith in leadership.

I hesitate to ask, but was the training organization selected in a process where $$$ was the heaviest weighted item in the decision-making? If yes, this is where the hidden costs may far exceed the actual price tag of the training organization. If your organization needs to spend more time trying to figure out how to apply the training within its culture and/or needs to re-energize/re-focus a group with low morale coming out of ineffective training, the cost to do that can be more than mere dollars and cents.

 

You still haven't answered the question, but sometimes the lack of an answer is an answer itself. ;-)

If you need to do follow-up training than the training was not effective and I would never deal with that training organization again.

Having folks do an audit after training is a way of seeing what has stuck and highlights any potential problem areas to work on. In terms of audits, this could be proper planning or how they ask questions or detailed notes. If, however, your organization needs to re-train on more than a couple of items, then the original training was ineffective and inefficient, and the training material/methodology/provider should be re-investigated.

 

That's a good example, where there's often no sharing of resources. However, often a CB will use the same auditors to teach, because they believe if they are a good auditor they can also teach! That's where the wheels come off the whole proposition. I've seen too many CB auditors who also ended up teaching an auditor course and all they know is the CB way. Not a good outcome...

 

Well it's true to say there's no "conflict", of course. But, at least in my mind, that's not the real issue. The issue is how effective is using an external auditor to teach if they aren't really a good instructor AND do they know anything more (about doing audits) than just being a CB auditor?

 

What do you mean by "certified", Phillip? Many course providers issue a certificate which simply means the person was present at a course. If you mean being a card-carrying IRCA or Exemplar Global "Certified" auditor, then this isn't required. An internal audit, as you state, needs to be competent.

Of course, the question then becomes what are the competency requirements an organization should define?

 

As Andy asked, certified in what? The definition of competency is, in general terms, the absence of mistakes. An auditor can get the ASQ Certified Quality Auditor certificate, and still be incompetent because it does not do much to prepare for on-the-job first party auditing. IRCA or Exemplar certification is generally obtained by 3rd party auditors and consultants.

I do recommend their passing an accredited Lead Auditor class. They tend to have exercises, at least, where they practice finding and writing nonconformances in various scenarios.

 

Registrars aren't supposed to offer "guidance". Their world is external audits, not internal audits. 12 hours isn't a measure of anything. 36 hours isn't enough for some. 4 hours could be enough for many. How long does it take to read and a standard? Based on what I have seen some Registrars do, they should take their own advice and double it!

 

In what form did they issue this guidance? It is troubling. Registrars are not supposed to give specifics like that, whether they call it guidance or anything else.

Competency does not have anything to do with number of hours in a class. I recommended accredited training because there is so much variation in, and customer dissatisfaction from non-accredited classes.