Re: Thoughts on auditing

"Craig Cochran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
> from a recent article of mine on auditing in Quality Digest:
> http://www.qualitydigest.com/aug03/articles/02_article.shtml.
>
> Have a nice weekend,
> Craig
>
>
> Confused about measuring customer satisfaction? Get this:
> http://www.patonpress.com/xcart/customer/product.php?productid=16153
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Craig Cochran
> Center for International Standards & Quality
> Georgia Institute of Technology
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Here is a quote from the TC 176 ISO 9001 Auditing Practices Group document
on "Value-added auditing" that addresses both points.
"For an organization that has little or no "quality culture" and a QMS that
does not conform to ISO 9001:2000, the expectation of a "value-added audit"
could mean that the organization would like to receive advice on "how to"
implement the quality management system and/or resolve any non-conformities
raised.
Here the auditor has to take great care, because in a third party audit such
advice would certainly generate a conflict of interest, and would contravene
the ISO/IEC Guide 62 requirements for the accreditation of certification
bodies. What the auditor can do, however, is ensure that whenever
non-conformities are encountered, the auditee has a clear understanding of
what the standard requires, and why the non-conformity is being raised."

It is axiomatic that a nonconformance can't be valid without a requirement
however there is no doubt that auditors and inspectors of various agencies
sometimes want to exceed their mandate.  I find the best defence is to have
chapter and verse at hand as to what exactly they are supposed to do and
challenge any variation. The biggest problem I have had is with senior
management scared of antagonizing auditors and compromising unnecessarily.
On the other hand if an auditor bends the rules a little don't know why
anyone would reject a little friendly advice as long as it is just that. We
want our problem-solving process to be capable of handling the problem
unaided if necessary but there is no need to be masochistic about it.
Regards,
John Duffus