TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
An auditor cannot ding you for anything without showing you
chapter and verse of whatever standard/requirement s/he
says you are not meeting. Therefore, the auditor must
provide you a copy of that other (not ISO 9001) standard
to which s/he is referring, OR must direct you to someone
in your chain-of-command who can provide that controlled
document to you. (And who should already have done so, if
it's an auditable requirement.)
The audit sword cuts both ways. Bite back. :-)
You can be legitimately in violation of an auditable requirement
only if that requirement is both available and controlled.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Turner
>
> ISO 9001 does't tell you how you are supposed to do that stuff only
> that you need a consistent system.
>
> It is not a requirement of 9001, it does appear to be a require mention
> of your customer.
>
> There is a difference. You are operating under two separate
> requirements.
>
> On Oct 28, 2011, at 10:56, Sally Derrick <sjd1201 -at- gmail -dot- com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Peter. Regarding audit type #1, what does your wife do when
> the
> > auditor is "requesting" something that is not required? For example,
> in my
> > brand new, shiny copy of ISO 9001, Section 4.2.3 Document Control has
> not
> > one word about approval signatures, effective dates, or retention
> periods.
> > However, the customer's internal auditor docked me a point for not
> having
> > it. I have pushed back on it and am waiting to hear their response.
> I
> > worry about the difference between interpretations on this stuff, and
> the
> > ever-present 'but we've always done it this way' mentality.
> >
> > Sally
[snip]
The information contained in this electronic mail transmission
may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected
from disclosure. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
message and deleting it from your computer without copying
or disclosing it.
Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help.
Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need. Try
Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days. http://www.doctohelp.com
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
