"Remote auditing (well, blended auditing) is here and here to stay”...it's all about planning... then taking the initiative... and of course, you've probably heard it from UKAS and loads of other Certification Bodies that, remote auditing is receiving positive feedback - excellent new at the time!

In fact, the remote and or blended audit has led to so many auditor's never actually visiting you - again, brilliant!

This podcast is aimed at those on the receiving end of Certification Body and UKAS “blended audits” of Quality Management Systems - making life easier.

A well prepared Quality Manager will support your auditor to become quick and slick.

Ask your Certification Body auditor for a "pre-audit" check-list of questions with clause by clause auditing timing - this will help you to help them - drive down your Certification costs by simple preparation.

Don't waste time "nattering" online. Keep to the audit plan. Feed you auditor with data and evidence. Ensure that you KPI's make sense - feed the auditor with facts.

We have decided to provide a few suggestions prior to starting your audit. The main one is train the Quality Manager to be the "face of your business"; its all about presentation.

This podcast is based on how to make the “remote audit” a success for those sitting on both side of the table, summarized as follows:

1. Contracts and non-disclosure agreements

2. Technology communication testing

3. Planning, timing and costing

4. Information and data media

5. Scope and duration

6. Culture and environmental perspective

7. Reporting the audit and follow-up

The “remote audit” is a completely different beast to norms of face to face auditing… it must be treated like a new technology… train yourselves on how to “present the case” for your business and quality management system.

Require support? Please contact us at The Assessment Register...
www.assessment-register.co.uk

All the best.

Support the show

When using the term "NPD" or "no performance determined", it means just that. You are issuing a warning to the customer, by way of the declaration, about the limitations of the product e.g. not everything has been specified and or tested.

This is particularly key when you do not have design within your "factory production control" (FPC) scope of supply (and producing the product against the customer supplied product design specification).

Within the Construction Products Regulation [(EU) No 305/2011 also the applicable UK Statutory Instrument] clearly states that the "manufacture" is the one placing the product onto the market, and ultimately the one responsible the integrity of the UKCA Mark as applied.

(EU) No 305/2011 - see Article 2 Clause 19

This basic fact about the one placing the product onto the market, is a key requirement of all UKCA obligations. Consider:

a) BS 1090-1 Table ZA.3 – this is the tasks for the certification (approved) body when they visit you (the enterprise) – to review the FPC only against (clause 6.3 and this limited focus is as legislated within the CPR and may exclude “design” - (EU) No 305/2011 - see Article 2 Clause 26) and with reference to;

b) Annex ZA.1 – the specification for the product as provided from the customer (or if design is within the FPC scope, the internal design requirements); as applicable to the product (and contract specification, as defined), with reference to;

c) Annex B – the certification [approved] body will undertake an initial inspection and on-going inspection of the FPC (as per scope – with reference to Annex B.4.2) – basically, assess the effectiveness of the FPC with consideration to the above 1 and 2; and finally;

d) ZA.3 ## – the certification [approved] body will review the “declaration of performance" UKCA Mark certificate content as issued by the FPC – to include any NPD’s as confirmed within 2 above.

Therefore, the Notified Body is awarding "certification" against the "factory production control" clause of BS 1090-1, 6.3 for the enterprise to issue "declarations of performance" for UKCA Mark (at the point of dispatch from their FPC).

Where the FPC excludes design from the scope as confirmed with the Approved Body, then the legal responsibility for the product specification sits firmly with the customer and or their design experts (AKA the CPR manufacturer in law).

Why are we putting this out there?

So many Approved Bodies are bouncing SME fabrication welding firms into "non-conformances" due to the SME's customer NOT providing the correct information for the product. From customers not providing the EXC level through to bolts and weld test specifications not made clear.

However, in this regard, we recommend to all "non-design" BS 1090 firms to simply state NPD on their UKCA Marking "declarations of performance" (in line with the BS 1090 Annex ZA's). Clearly stating this within the "declaration of performance" to the customer specified requirements as per their drawing specification provided.

As a non-design BS 1090 firm, you cannot be permitted to deviate from the information provided from your customer (without written consent to do so, under for example a concession from the design authority - the customer); should you deviate from the customer contract specification, this would be a breach of contract and you would be liable for any failures.

Approved Bodies should focus on auditing with reference to the primary points of legal reference; the CPR and UKCA Marking, with reference to the scope limitations of the BS 1090 clause 6.3. The BS 1090 has become the focus of attention and not the legal frame-work - for safe product and compliance documentation, such as the agreed product specification for the product.

Support the show

80% OF NCR'S CAN BE DIRECTLY TRACED TO WEAK REVIEW OF CUSTOMER CONTRACTS & TENDERS.

Quality management systems require some basic ingredients to ensure effectiveness. One of the primary ingredients is "contract review" for AS 9100, ISO 9001 and ISO 17025.

Keeping in mind that 80% of an organizations poor performance, can be traced to a poorly controlled "contract review" process. Due to the lack of? Yes, you've guessed it, due to the lack of "review of the contract detail".

Or not reviewing the contract terms and conditions for technical and quality requirements and commercial obligations.

Customer complaints, supplier issues, in-process reworking, late delivery, etc. can almost all be attributed to those involved with contract review. Those unfortunate individuals that are either under pressure, under resourced or under qualified for the task.

This podcast will simply highlight the requirements for the management and administration of sales order processing and effective quality control of your customer needs.

www.assessment-register.co.uk

Support the show