The Problem with audits and auditors
The IATF and the automotive approach to process auditing
have led many to rethink the processes associated with Third Party Audits. Many
improvements in auditing practices for third party have resulted because of
this emphasis on improving third party audits from the initial readiness
review, to the process based audit plan, to even writing up non-conformances.
Similarly, organizations performing internal audits need to improve their
overall process for them.
Auditor competencies for ISO/TS 16949:2009 and ISO 9001:2008
can be evaluated using a competencies matrix developed by the IATF. This matrix
has broken down auditor competencies into 113 different competency areas for 31
different activities. A third party registrar evaluating its auditor base
concluded that there was a 38% deficiency in its third party auditors.
The competencies identified by the IATF do not even cover
requirements to understand ISO/TS 16949:2009, Customer Specific Requirements,
Core Tools or the auditing process described in ISO 19011:2002. These auditor
competencies detail what types of knowledge and competency auditors need to
have in readiness reviews and when performing Stage II audits.
After an internal audit is performed, does the organization
feel they have understood the business areas and/or the processes to improve?
Or is the internal audit another exercise identifying the leaves on the trees
but missing the rot in the tree trunk? In other words, detailed items like
document control and lack of training records are written up, but issues like
losing a customer due to repeated problems and/or severe cost issues in new
product launch go undetected?
No comments:
Post a Comment