How long is an audit day?
argues that differing interpretations of the length of an audit day are reducing the value of audits
For some time there have been debates about the benefits of third-party certification and the competence of auditors, but more recently a far more serious problem has arisen: the interpretation of ISO 17021, particularly with regards to what constitutes an audit day.
In the UK a typical audit day is accepted as seven hours. However, outside the UK it is understood to mean eight hours of actual auditing as required by clause 1.2 of the International Accreditation Forum’s mandatory document 5 (MD5). While the German and US accreditation bodies apply this rule rigidly the UK’s accreditation body, UKAS, does not.
I was recently involved in a UKAS-witnessed audit in the UK where the audit day was seven hours long, including a lunch break and 1.5 hours to write the audit report, equating to only five hours of actual auditing.
At the time I queried this with the UKAS auditor, mentioning the requirements of ISO 17021 and MD5 and was told that they were ‘not too concerned with auditing for eight hours – it is what is covered during the audit that is important'. However, when I approached a European certification body about the eight hour audit requirement it responded saying that MD5 was ‘unambiguous regarding audit time’.
Clause 1.2 states: ‘National adjustments on the number of days may be needed to comply with local legislation for travel, lunch breaks and working hours, to achieve the same total numbers of hours of auditing.’
So lunch, travel time and full report writing should not reduce the total auditing time. Further, to silence those critics that say an eight-hour audit day would contravene legislation such as the UK Working Time Directive, MD5 acknowledges such legislation but makes it clear that any shortfall should be made up the next day.
If certification bodies reduce the real audit time onsite to around five hours a day, then they have to ensure that additional audit hours are achieved to reach the required time onsite.
That said , if certification bodies insist on auditors working four to five days every week auditing clients scattered across the UK and overseas, eight-hour audit days cannot be sustained without increasing auditor stress in an already difficult profession.
Other critics argue that eight hours is not necessary to audit some smaller organizations, but in my experience there is more than enough to audit during the time. If auditors audit the effectiveness of an organization’s business processes, how they measure them in relation to business objectives and drive continual improvement , and not simply compliance against the relevant ISO clauses then they will find five hours is not enough time to achieve this.
In my experience, when clients have transferred their certification from UK bodies to those accredited outside the UK, many have been shocked that significant problems and major nonconformities were found during the ‘long’ eight-hour day, that had not been identified previously.
What next?
Currently, a client pays for a day’s audit that equates to five or eight hours auditing depending on which accreditation body has accredited the certification body. So where do we go from here?
For certification bodies in the UK, UKAS needs to declare its interpretation of MD5 and, if it is at variance with other accreditation bodies, change adn apply it in accordance with the other accreditation bodies. I have approached UKAS on two separate occasions asking for such clarification, but have as yet received no response.
If all accreditation bodies applied ISO 17021 uniformly, accepting that an audit day means eight hours of auditing, certification bodies may lose a few clients due to the additional cost, but it might help reduce auditors’ stress and maintain profitability for the certification bodies. More importantly, it will add more value to the fee-paying clients in terms of improving their business, not merely ISO compliance.
Personally, I believe that seven hours of effective auditing is a far more realistic target and question why the requirement for eight hours was ever formulated. Perhaps certification bodies should press for a change to seven hours.
About the author
Barrie Flooks is the director of External Management Services, an experienced auditor and a member of the Chartered Quality Institute
