Questions and answers
Make it official
Please
tell me what I need to do to transfer to QMS 2000 auditor grade. I
completed the transition training four years ago and I have been auditing
ISO 9001 ever since.
Martin Lee
QMS auditor UK
IRCA response:
All the remaining auditors who have not yet transferred from the QMS auditor certification program (IRCA/102) to the QMS 2000 auditor certification program (IRCA/602), can download the application for transfer form (IRCA/631) from www.irca.org/certification/certification_1_3.html
This form lists detailed transfer criteria.
In your specific case, to transfer from QMS auditor to QMS 2000 auditor please supply us with the following:
- evidence that you have completed an IRCA certified transition training course (or an acceptable alternative)
- evidence of 30 hours CPD within the previous two years recorded on IRCA/173 CPD log sheets
- four acceptable audits against ISO 9001:2000 within the three year period before you applied for transfer
- the transfer fee
A cocktail of standards?
Are
you going to address the requirements for certification as an aerospace
auditor/lead auditor? Will the AS9100A standard and the requirements
for NADCAP be combined?
Cecil Edwards
QMS/aerospace lead auditor US
IRCA response:
IRCA have provided an international scheme for certification of aerospace auditors for several years, see www.irca.org/certification/certification_4.html. The current program recognizes auditor competence using the AS/EN/JQA 9100A aerospace industry management system standard.
To our knowledge there are no current plans to combine the AS 9100A standard for the aerospace industry with the US government NADCAP standard which is specific to measurement and testing services.
Controversy in Central Asia
We
are a growing consulting agency in central Asia. We provide consultancies
for ISO 9001, 14001 and 17025 during which I have experienced two
controversial issues.
a) The first issue concerns paragraph 5.5.1 of ISO 9001 ‘responsibility and authority’. It reads: ‘Top management shall ensure that the responsibilities, authorities and their interrelation are defined and communicated within the organization’.
An organizational chart of the company would be sufficient to show systems and their interrelation (apart from responsibilities not defined elsewhere). This assumes that the organization's chart included the hierarchical order. Then all the information could be on one document. Is this a good idea?
b) The second issue concerns quality objectives, which have to be measurable. One interpretation of being measurable is being achievable.
Once objectives are achieved it is possible to measure how they were achieved. I have experience of companies that do not want to quantify their quality objectives and they do not know when they will be achieved. Yet, I am repeatedly told, quality objectives must be quantified.
I agree that in most cases objectives do need to be measurable, but there are objectives and situations where a company does not know when it will achieve the objectives.
The period of time it takes to gain certification, to ISO 9001 for example, needs to be measured and so does the action taken to achieve certification. Some companies think it would be better to measure these achievements after they have been completed.
This difference of opinion causes conflict between auditors, who set methods to measure objectives, and companies that want to measure their objectives after they have been achieved. Who is right?
Roman R
provisional auditor, Kazakhstan
IRCA response:
a) First, let us start with the intent of the standard. It is to ensure
clarity within the organization with regard to:
- who is responsible for what?
- how people interrelate?
- clearly communicating the levels of authority of each key member of the organization
What is fit for purpose and appropriate will depend on the size and complexity of the organization. An organization chart is a great way of showing inter-relationships but this does not necessarily meet the full intent alone.
Also include a brief description of the key accountabilities of the main staff in the organization in the quality manual. These descriptions can be further expanded by individual job descriptions.
b) The requirement to establish objectives at all levels within the organization is a mechanism to drive the improvement requirement within the standard. These objectives must be quantifiable and measurable. There is then an expectation that Programmes (timelines, milestones, targets, reviews) will be put in place to monitor progress and provide evidence of effective closure of each objective.
Some objectives may be classified as enabling objectives, these take the form of projects/work assignments, which are aimed at researching a topic and fully understanding the issues involved. This helps to prepare the definitive quantifiable and measurable objectives that are set when projects are finished.
These enabling objectives are less quantifiable and more subjective but the outcome should allow detailed measurable objectives to be defined.
Clause 8 requires activity to be monitored and measured with data that is captured and analyzed to provide information for future decision making.
If targets for specific improvement projects are not quantified, how can the aims be achievement assessed?
Objectives have to be measurable (ie quantified in the form of what by when) and outcomes have to be measured (ie what was achieved and did it meet its expectation?).
An organisation that relies only on defining enabling objectives is not fully meeting the intent of the standard.
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|