Featured Book of the Month:

Title: Internal Auditing in a Total Quality Environment

Author: Elaine McIntosh

Publisher: Inst of Internal Auditors

Notes: How does internal auditing fit into a total quality environment? Elaine McIntosh explores this question and reveals how to maximize the internal audit function.

You can order this book from internal-auditor.com at: http://www.internal-auditor.com/books.htm

This Month's Feature Article

One of the many changes that ISO 9001:2000 brought to us is an increase in focus on top management commitment. Every sub-clause in Clause 5 begins with; "Top management shall…". In addition to the nine times it is stated in Clause 5, everywhere in the standard it says; "The organization shall…", it is top management's responsibility to ensure the shall is met. That is a lot of commitment! 

How do we, as auditors audit management commitment? Can we audit commitment and remain "objective" and "unbiased"? What evidence would prove top management is committed to the Quality Management System, and what evidence would show lack of commitment? 

Let's take a closer look at how to audit Top Management Commitment. Sub-clause 5.1 Management commitment states: "Top management shall provide evidence of its commitment to the development and implementation of the quality management system and continually improving its effectiveness by…" Note the phrase "shall provide evidence". As internal auditors we live by objective evidence. Here, the standard tells us that there will be objective evidence, and it even tells you what that evidence will be: 

1. Communicating to the organization the importance of meeting customer as well as statutory and regulatory requirements. 

2. Establishing the quality policy 

3. Ensuring that the objectives are established 

4. Conducting management reviews and 

5. Ensuring the availability of resources 

So, what does this mean? Let's explore each of these in detail to get an idea of what things constitute the required "evidence of its commitment." 

Communicating 

"Communicating to the organization the importance of meeting customer as well as statutory and regulatory requirements." This might be the hardest evidence to uncover because it is not something you can just look at and see that it exists. Instead, the auditor must do a little digging. It might appear on the surface that there is communication, but what is really being said? 

We communicate through a series of actions. First are the words, either spoken or written. Does top management say the right things? Is the message getting out that top management is supporting the Quality Management System? What about the other items (b-e)? Are they being supported by management? Is management's attitude one of enthusiastic support, or are they displaying a negative attitude ("I don't like it but ISO is making us do it.")? 

Also consider their actions. November's scenario question dealt with a purchasing manager who's performance goals were contradictory to the quality policy. Here, top management is communicating that reducing lead times are one of the quality goals, but the purchasing manager's performance objective was to reduce cost. The clear communication by top management is that the quality objective is a paper objective and is not really all that important. When auditing management commitment, consider whether the organizational goals and objectives and the QMS goals and objective are compatible. They should be. 

This is a hard thing to audit. Not only must you ask the questions above, but also you must be able to put aside your personal feelings and look at the entire QMS communication scheme in an objective light. Remember, that it is not important for top management to meet our expectations in communication, but rather to meet the standard's requirements. 

Quality Policy 

Sub-clause 5.3 gives details of the Quality Policy requirements. Top management must ensure that all of the requirements listed in 5.3 are met. It is important to note that the Quality Policy does not have to be written by top management. Top management must ensure that it is established and that it meets a - e in 5.3. 

Auditing the policy is much harder than just reading the policy. Auditors need to know the policy, as does all employees. However, auditors must also meet the other requirements and that will take a little bit more digging to find out if the policy provides the necessary framework, for example. 

Quality Objectives 

Like the Quality Policy, the Quality Objectives are also governed by another part of the standard. Also, once again, top management must ensure the objectives are established and meet the requirements set forth in this case in sub-clause 5.4.1. 

When auditing the objectives, the auditor must audit at several levels. First, are the global objectives which apply to all products and processes. Examples of these objectives would be things like 100% on-time delivery, 100% first-time quality and no customer complaints. There should also be objectives at the process and product level. Process objectives could be items such as CPK or yield values. Product objectives would include detailed information such as; ship date, color, size or material requirements. 

Management Reviews 

A trend is emerging. Management reviews requirements are also detailed in a separate section of the standard, specifically, 5.6. Top management must ensure the reviews are being conducted, and top management is required to be the ones conducting the review. 

An audit of management review would consider such information as when the review occurred. Specific records must be maintained, and most of the information should be able to be obtained from those records. One important note here is that the standard does not require management review meetings, only management review. Management review meetings are the most common method of performing the review, but meetings are not mandatory (unless your documentation requires them).

Availability of Resources 

Next month, we will look at this in great detail, but for now we will consider a couple of aspects. It never seems that the organization has enough people, equipment or time. Every organization appears to be on the edge of lack of adequate resources. It is easy to fall into a trap while auditing resource availability. The key in auditing this area is to look and determine if the lack or resources are causing nonconforming product, late shipments, or customer dissatisfaction. Your perception of being overworked and underpaid cannot be reflected in the audit. 

Summary: 

Auditing top management commitment is less about how you feel towards management and more about what evidence top management has provided. 5.1 gives you the information on what evidence to look for, and the rest of the standard gives detail as to what that evidence will look like. The standard itself is the answer to objective and unbiased auditing.

As always...Good Auditing!

top of page

www.mmtc.org 

Q –How much detail must the Management Representative go into during management review?

A – This question gets asked frequently. There is no set answer. The entire reason for management review is so that top management has all the information that is needed to make intelligent decisions regarding the Quality Management System. Some information is required as inputs to the management review, however the extent of this information is not mandated. 

top of page

A couple of growing trends are emerging with ISO 9K2K. First is the use of contracted internal auditors. More and more companies are using external auditors to ensure objectivity and impartiality. The second trend is the use of auditing "partnerships". A growing number of organizations are using trade associations to trade internal auditors. Company A audits company B who audits company C who audits company A. Contracting internal audits and auditing partnerships can also help keep the audit schedule on track, as most organizations will not want to cancel or reschedule an audit if someone is coming in from the outside.

top of page

ISO 9001:2000 Clause 5.3 Quality Policy

"Top management shall ensure that the quality policy

c) is communicated and understood with the organization, and"

One definition of noise is "anything the receiver cannot understand." In order for communication to occur the receiver must understand the message. With the Quality Policy, the same is true. In order for the policy to be communicated, it must be understood. In order to be understood, it must be; presented (verbally or written), modeled (walk the talk), and it must be reinforced. Conflicting signals, lack of reinforcement and wavering on the part of top management communicates the policy is not real to top management. And if it isn't real to top management, it isn't real to anyone else.

top of page

April 2001’s question:

You are auditing 4.14, Corrective and Preventive Actions. There are several corrective actions that relate to scrap generated by employees not following procedures or work instructions. The root cause was identified as "language inconsistencies". Your company has a very diverse employee base, with a wide variety of ethnic, cultural and geographic backgrounds. All procedures and work instructions are written in the local language. Many employees have a difficult time understanding the procedures and work instructions. The corrective action entails either moving the employee that made the scrap to another operation, or releasing the employee. When questioned whether the solution is sufficient, the HR director indicates that there is little more that can be done.

The answer:

This is a growing problem, and a concern for many businesses. The problem is how to communicate the requirements to employees of diverse backgrounds. In many cases miscommunication either causes, or has the potential to cause nonconformances. While it might be acceptable to list language inconsistencies as a cause of nonconformances, they would not be the "root cause". The root cause deals with why the language inconsistencies are allowed. The real issue here is in documentation and training. If the employees cannot understand the documentation, or the training, they cannot be expected to perform satisfactorily. Because "several" corrective actions had the same "root cause" identified, the organization did not effectively implement the corrective action.

 top of page

Quality from the Heart

Ruth Ellen's uncle Gene passed away recently. Whenever someone passes, we tend to reflect on the life of the person. Gene's passing was no exception. When remembering Gene two things come to mind. He was quick to offer his assistance or his opinion on any subject at any time. Many of us are quick to offer our opinion, but few are quick to offer assistance. What really made Gene unique was his assistance, or opinion was never without thought and thoroughness. Regardless whether you wanted his help in building a bird feeder, or wanted to talk about global warming, Gene would go through a series of steps to identify just exactly what you were looking for and then apply logic and reasoning to provide you with something of value. In the case of the bird feeder, Gene would find out what kinds and how many birds you wanted to feed. He would look at what kind of food and how much space you had. He would consider every known factor to arrive at the perfect feeder for your needs. With global warming, he would ask why you were concerned. He would discover what information you already had, and add what information he had that was in addition to yours. The most important thing was that Gene actually listened to you (his customer). He communicated well and tried to apply what he had learned from you. Perhaps we all need to be a bit more like Gene.

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.
internal-auditor.com is a publication of 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