Rank: Super forum user 
|
I do get annoyed with people who sign up with Quality standards (ISO 9001, 14000 and 18001) pay for audits and then get all defensive about non-compliances. From some of the postings on this forum it sounds like they have been condemned by the Spanish Inquisition.
1. Firstly all of the standards are not about imposing some perfect one size all fits system for all organisations. It’s about demonstrating that the systems you are using are the right ones to achieve YOUR organisation’s goals. You are the owner of the process not the auditor.
2. There is a minimum of lethal compliance but most of what you need to get this compliance is based on good practice, which is what you should be aiming for.
3. If you receive non-compliance from the auditor and you don’t understand what they are asking for or if it is needed at all, ask your auditors to explain in detail what they want and why they want it. Often this is the result of a misunderstanding by the auditor. Remember they have only been on your site for a few days and have only been able to take a sample of what you are doing. It is easy for them to miss something.
4. Finally you are paying for the audit. If they provide you with a rubbish service- failure to identify what the organisation is trying to achieve, trying to impose spurious requests etc then you can tell then that you no longer require their services and you will find another auditor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Firstly, I wonder what "lethal compliance" is ....... !!
Secondly, and more constructively, I have found that by issuing non-conformities against management (specifically commonly against myself) as well as the local management the whole concept of NCNs is accepted more by staff.
In addition, I have the habit of, for example, passing a notice which needs to be regularly signed but has been missed, of saying to the auditee that I need to check this sign - will get round to it in half an hour. Makes them feel that any NCNs I find are genuine and not nit-picking.
Both these tend to increase the trust in the auditing system - it is there to improve the system, not just yet another paper exercise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
colinreeves wrote:In addition, I have the habit of, for example, passing a notice which needs to be regularly signed but has been missed, of saying to the auditee that I need to check this sign - will get round to it in half an hour. Makes them feel that any NCNs I find are genuine and not nit-picking.
Not sure what you are getting at, but it sounds like you will be giving them half an hour to get the notice signed, but surely the non-conformity is deeper than that, the issue is no that it hasn't been signed, but why it hasn't been signed.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Ken Slack wrote:colinreeves wrote:In addition, I have the habit of, for example, passing a notice which needs to be regularly signed but has been missed, of saying to the auditee that I need to check this sign - will get round to it in half an hour. Makes them feel that any NCNs I find are genuine and not nit-picking.
Not sure what you are getting at, but it sounds like you will be giving them half an hour to get the notice signed, but surely the non-conformity is deeper than that, the issue is no that it hasn't been signed, but why it hasn't been signed..... Probably Ken, because the person who's job it is to wonder around arbitrarely signing bits of paper isn't available. It's almost certain that the checks to which they relate haven't actually been completed in eons. When I'm auditing ('cause that's what Safety Smurfs do best) I check the item that's been signed off as well as the bit of paper recording it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ken Slack wrote:Not sure what you are getting at, but it sounds like you will be giving them half an hour to get the notice signed, but surely the non-conformity is deeper than that, the issue is no that it hasn't been signed, but why it hasn't been signed..... The example I gave is that a sign on display in public has been forgotten. The data that is on the sheet is recorded elsewhere and audited - purely an oversight, not a fundamental failure. Possibly a bad example, apologies!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.