Re: Thoughts on auditing

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Cochran) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Howdy, folks:
> 
> Here are a couple of auditing points I'd enjoy hearing everyone's
> opinions on. These aren't incredible breakthroughs or anything, but
> they seem to come up quite often. Here they are:
> 
> 1) A nonconformity doesn't exist without a requirement. The best way
> to ensure that this isn't forgotten is to insist that auditors (first
> party, second party, and third party) clearly write out
> nonconformities in a two-part manner: part 1 is the requirement and
> part 2 is exactly what the auditor found that contradicts the
> requirement. A one-two punch, so to speak. Insisting that auditors
> write nonconformities this way removes a lot of "invented"
> discrepancies.
> 
> 2) Auditors (even internal auditors) should never propose fixes,
> remedies, or suggestions for corrective action. This short-circuits
> the problem solving process and encourages laziness. It also takes
> away the ownership for the corrective action. Even when pressed for
> ideas, the auditor should defer to the auditee's creativity and
> knowledge of their process.
> 
> So, anyone want to bite on either of these? The 2nd point is the one I
> expect people have stronger opinions on. These notions and others come

Folks

1) A non-conformance 

This is a great way to ensure better write-ups for non-conformances
and it has been adopted already by a lot of the auditors. As you say
it takes away a lot of invented non-conformances. But if the original
non-conformances were not valid findings then surely it falls on the
quality manager to stand up to the auditor and tell him that the
findings are not acceptable?


2) Fixes

Proposals for fixes should be welcomed from anyone (even auditors) as
long as they are treated as proposals. There is no problem with the
auditor making suggestions but again the quality manager should ensure
that they address the problem fully and to their own satisfaction. The
auditor is there to make a short term judgement on compliance to a
standard the quality manager should have a more in depth knowledge and
confidence enough to make their own decision and be prepared to
justify that decision.

The problems I believe are normally to be found in treating the
auditor like a god and not probing enough to build a common
understanding. In short if the quality manager were strong in
character and confident in their system then there would be no problem
with the auditor findings or comments?

PS I am not an auditor.
Bsg