|
|||||||||||||
|
The American Society for Quality (ASQ) offers certification of internal auditors (Certified Quality Auditor, or CQA). There are certain education, experience and proof of professionalism requirements that can be found on their website. You must also successfully pass a written examination. I should remind you that certification of internal auditors is not required, but does a lot to demonstrate your professionalism and dedication to our field. Also, if you are not a member of ASQ, you should be ashamed of yourself. You can join when you visit them. If you are a member, make sure you become active in your local chapter. |
||||
|
Title: ISO 9000 at the Front Line Author: William A. Levinson Publisher: American Society for Quality Notes: Helps leaders train frontline workers in basic principles and goals of the new ISO 9000:2000 standard and the provisions for the QS-9000 standard, with short case studies, discussion questions, exercises, and solutions. Includes guidelines for instructors and trainers, a pre-class questionnaire, and an outline of a system for frontline workers to initiate quality and safety improvement projects.
|
|
|||
|
You can order this book from internal-auditor.com at: http://www.internal-auditor.com/books.htm |
||||
This Month's Feature ArticleAuditing the Audit ProgramYou are setting up your audit schedule. As Management Representative, you are careful to assign internal auditors that are completely independent of the activity being audited and are free from bias. All areas and activities have been covered but one. You stare at the nearly completed schedule racking your brain trying to find a solution. How do you audit the internal audit activity? Who can audit the auditing and remain independent? You are not alone. This is a common dilemma that all Management Representatives face. So what can you do? The first thing to do is to look at your program. You already know if it works or not. You already know to some extent how effective the audit program is. If this is true, you need not to be overly concerned. If neither of the above are true, then you clearly need some help! So, you know your system is working, how do you assess the internal audit program and remain independent? Well, actually there are only two ways. You can either assess it yourself, or get an outside organization to assess it. Let's look at each, beginning with external sources: External Assessments Typically, there are three ways we use external resources to assess the audit program. These are:
Use of external auditors Last December, we discussed the use of external internal auditors. External assessments can be as simple as that. You might want to contract out all of your auditing, or just a part of it. Perhaps auditing the audit program is the only area where you use external auditors. You can obtain external auditors from a variety of sources. Other companies you can trust, local colleges even registrars can provide resources. If you are in the US, look to your local Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or MEP for assistance. Also, this could be an ideal opportunity to engage a local consultant. Most will offer this service, but some will use it as an opportunity to show you what else they can help you with. That might not be a bad thing. When using external auditors to audit the audit program make sure the scope of the audit is clear from the beginning. They can be used in conjunction with your regular auditors and scheduled as any other audit, or they could be a special event. Use them in any way that meets your needs. Just make sure your own documentation is not being violated! External auditors should be using your procedures, your forms and your reports. Use of second-party auditors Most companies in the automotive sector have had to "endure" a customer audit. We usually do not consider these to be pleasant experiences, but they should be. Customer audits can give us valuable information because it is an audit from "the customer's view", and our entire goal should be to satisfy the customer. If prearranged, the customer audit could also be used as part of your internal audit assessment. They might even allow their auditors to specifically audit your internal audit program. Some customers will even provide this at no charge. Those that do charge may do so at a lower cost than other external sources. It also demonstrates to the customer your commitment to you QMS and their satisfaction. Just like with all external auditors, when using second-party auditors make sure the agreement between you and the customer clearly states what the audit scope will be. The customer needs to know you will use the audit to asses your internal audit program. As mentioned above, they should use your documents, forms and reports. Use of third-party auditors This is the most controversial of all external options. Some believe that this is automatic. Others believe that it is placing the registrar in a compromising position. Chances are your registrar will let you know if they are willing to be used in this manner. Some registrars will allow you to use their audit of the your internal audit program only when accompanied with other internally generated data that shows the audit program is being evaluated. Internal Assessments Internal assessments are by far the most common method of auditing the audit program. They can be the most useful as well. In order to use internal resources properly, you must first decide on some ground rules. The first is: All internal audits must be objective The standard (pick one) clearly indicates that audits shall be objective. Call this free from bias, independence, or any other phrase. It all means the same thing. The auditor needs to have no reason to alter the audit results, whether they be good or bad. To ensure objectivity, auditors should be selected who are the most removed from the audit process. Some companies meet this by having one person only audit the audit program. This is usually accomplished by assigning this task to the Management Representative. Others feel the Management Representative is too much involved in the process. They rely on someone from upper management to audit the internal audit program. Whoever is selected to perform the audit, they need to be in a position where they can exhibit freedom from bias. All internal audits must be comprehensive Show me in the standard where it says internal audits must be comprehensive! Even QS only says audits should cover all shifts. Notice the "should" rather than a "shall". The word "comprehensive" takes on a different meaning when dealing with auditing the internal audit program. Although all audits are merely samples, the sampling technique must include the entire process in order to give a clear picture of the auditing process. Use all indicators Part of the requirement is that the internal audit program be effective. When we are auditing the internal audit program, we need to determine what is being done to gauge the effectiveness of the overall system. With internal auditing that could be indicated by such things as conformance to the audit schedule, turn-around time on nonconformances generated by the internal audits, or even the turn-around time on audit reports. [See Element Understandin g]Summary: There are two very important points when deciding how to audit the internal auditing program. First is regardless how you do it, the system must work. The second point is one I push continually. It is your system! There is no mandated method of meeting the requirement. If your system is working, there is no need to change it because someone else doesn't like it, or thinks it is not enough! As always...Good Auditing! |
||||
|
Advertisement: |
||||
|
Question and Answers: Q – We were recently audited by our registrar. While auditing our internal audit system, he noted that some of our internal audits had not been completed "within a year." Does this mean calendar year, or within 12 months? A – Thanks for the email. Read the standard carefully, ISO makes no mention of auditing each area annually. QS only mentions "an audit schedule updated annually." Literally, this means that the schedule needs to be revised once a year. There is no requirement to audit all areas yearly. But wait.......There might be a stipulation in your in your own documentation, or in your agreement with your registrar, where you agree to the registrar's requirement. If that is so, then what ever rules the registrar puts in place will dictate when auditing must occur. Barring that, make the auditor show you where IN THE STANDARD it requires annual auditing. If he/she finds it, let me know. |
||||
|
Observations from the Field Should you ever change registrars when everything is going well? That's exactly what one company did! They felt that, although their audits always went well, the registrar might not be looking deep enough. In most cases their internal auditors found more substantial things than their registrar did [This should be routine]. The registrar offered to change lead auditors, but the company felt their system would grow stronger with a different registrar. This kind of move takes guts! To move past their comfort zone and expose their system to a whole new set of eyes is a bit risky. They knew their system was working and that made all the difference! |
||||
|
Element Understanding: ISO-9001:1994 [QS-9000] Element 4.17 Internal Quality Audits "...and determine the effectiveness of the quality system." Determining the effectiveness of the QMS can be a daunting task. In our Monthly Feature, we examine a couple of possibilities. Some other indicators might be the type, nature and number of nonconformances found [from either internal audits or external audits]. Some companies also look at what parts of the internal audit are considered in management review, and what the review outputs are. You might want to avoid metrics that can easily be manipulated, such as the number of audits performed. If you use the number of nonconformances be careful, they too could end up being manipulated. |
||||
|
Monthly Scenario Explained: April
2001’s question: Your company manufactures and sells industrial piping that is sold in either 8 foot, or 20 foot lengths, depending the application. Due to the fact that the ends of the piping tend to get nicked, and the piping must have threads cut at the installation site, it is customary to manufacture the pipe with about 2 inches extra length. For consistency's sake, a stop was added to the cut-off saw at 8 feet 2 inches and 20 feet two inches. These distances were measured once, when installed [using a common tape measure], and have not been measured since. The calibration technician states that because they cut the pipes 2 inches long, an in-house specification, neither the stops or the tape measures need to be calibrated. Should a stop move, it would be obvious because the old stop location would be visible. Also, the installers, company employees, would complain if the lengths were short. Long lengths may cost more money, but will not cause a complaint. The calibration technician says there are no records of any type for calibration of the stops, or the tape. The
answer: This in some form or another is a common problem, especially in instances where custom installation may negate any calibration. Here also is where there is a separation between intent and letter of the standard. In this case, QS-9000 was the applicable set of requirements. 4.11.2 a) states "The supplier shall: a) determine the measurements to be made and the accuracy required and select the appropriate ...equipment that is capable of the necessary accuracy and precision." You would be hard pressed to find an escape clause in the requirements that would allow the type of measurement used. In this case, it was determined that the actual measurement occurred at installation and the calibration used was the installer hand fitting the pipe. After all, that is where the pipe was actually measured for length. It was decided that the actual calibration standard was really the gap the pipe had to fill. No nonconformance was written. |
||||
|
The Back Page:
Well 2001 is finally behind us. The new year is already looking better. Indicators show manufacturing picking up a little. Any improvement is welcome! Things I have seen seem to suggest that the improvement is the beginning of a trend. Let's hope so. Speaking of improvement, this is also a great time to take a good look at your Quality Management System. It makes no difference if you are the Management Representative, the Lead Auditor, or an Internal Auditor. The QMS is the responsibility of each of us. We all need to review it, and find ways to improve. If you are the Management Representative, then open yourself to idea that others may have good ideas. Let's all make this a banner year. Dave ...Good auditing!
|
||||
|
Copyright notice: internal-auditor.com is
fully protected under US and International copyright laws. Copying, or
re-transmitting all, or any part of internal-auditor.com is expressly forbidden
without prior written consent from Ruth Ellen Carey Communications.
Because this site uses information from many different sources, it must be pointed out that any advice, tips, information, etc., provided should be regarded as opinion and not fact! What works well for one company may be a disaster for another. Also, what one registrar, or auditor may allow, another may not. As always, reflect on what you read, see if it fits into your own quality system, and if it conflicts with your auditor...you've got to make a decision |
||||
