| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionNext revisionBoth sides next revision |
| articles:types_of_audits [2020/06/24 10:57] – [Conclusion] rrandall | articles:types_of_audits [2022/01/12 16:27] – [Types of Audits] rrandall |
|---|
| ====== Types of Audits ====== | ====== Types of Audits ====== |
| | |
| | Before we discuss the different "types" of audits, we must first define the "scope" of the audit. |
| | |
| | ^ Internal Audits ^ External Audits ^^ |
| | ^ 1st Party Audits ^ 2nd Party Audits ^ 3rd Party Audits ^ |
| | | | Audits of Suppliers | Audits performed by Certification Bodies (CBs), e.g., ISO 9001, AS 9100 | |
| | | | Audits performed by customers | | |
| | |
| |
| Despite the fact that there are many different types of audits, ISO 9001 & AS9100 registrars and consultants have been singing praises of "Process-based” audits for years. In fact, they've been promoted to the point that //some// ISO 9001 & AS9100 auditors have actually issued (unjustified) nonconformities to companies for having performed “clause/element-based" internal audits rather than the //preferred// "process-based" audits! | Despite the fact that there are many different types of audits, ISO 9001 & AS9100 registrars and consultants have been singing praises of "Process-based” audits for years. In fact, they've been promoted to the point that //some// ISO 9001 & AS9100 auditors have actually issued (unjustified) nonconformities to companies for having performed “clause/element-based" internal audits rather than the //preferred// "process-based" audits! |
| b. is EFFECTIVELY implemented and maintained.</blockquote> | b. is EFFECTIVELY implemented and maintained.</blockquote> |
| |
| Largely due to "indoctrination" (from the registrars) in how to think about ISO 9001 & AS9100, many auditors consider a "process-based" audit to be the ONLY way possible to determine "//whether the quality management system is effectively implemented and maintained//”. This was further supported by an "opinion" provided in the [[https://asq.org/quality-resources/iso-9001/us-tc176|US TC 176 - TG22 - Interpretations]] (Read: [[articles:re-writing_iso_9001_through_interpretation|Re-writing ISO 9001:2015... through Interpretation]]). | Largely due to "indoctrination" (from the registrars) in how to think about ISO 9001 & AS9100, many auditors consider a "process-based" audit to be the ONLY way possible to determine "//whether the quality management system is effectively implemented and maintained//”. This was further supported by a "non-binding" opinion provided in the [[https://asq.org/quality-resources/iso-9001/us-tc176|US TC 176 - TG22 - Interpretations]] (Read: [[articles:re-writing_iso_9001_through_interpretation|Re-writing ISO 9001:2015... through Interpretation]]). |
| |
| However, is this true? | However, is this true? |
| 5 - The official ISO document "[[https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/archive/pdf/en/iso9001-2015-process-appr.pdf|The Process Approach in ISO 9001:2015]]" describes the process approach toward the QMS WITHOUT requiring (or even mentioning) a “process-based” internal audit. | 5 - The official ISO document "[[https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/archive/pdf/en/iso9001-2015-process-appr.pdf|The Process Approach in ISO 9001:2015]]" describes the process approach toward the QMS WITHOUT requiring (or even mentioning) a “process-based” internal audit. |
| |
| The above should be sufficient ammunition to "appeal" this type of nonconformity. | The above should be sufficient information to "appeal" this type of invalid nonconformity. |
| |
| The point is that auditors should be there to verify compliance "actual" requirements. Not imagining requirements where none exist. | The point is that auditors should be there to verify compliance with "actual" requirements. Not imagine requirements where none exists. |
| |
