Would like to get some feedback from those who perform QA.
An individual (or entity) who qualifies WPS's, PQR's, WPQR's, or performs NDT or other testing for a company, then returns to this company later to perform an audit (for another client) of welding related activities and review is required of all welding documentation. The individual is now reviewing their own previously issued documentation, is this a conflict of interest?
The client is citing, "Where does it say this is a conflict?" I have stated that reviewing your own documentation does not require a qualifier, but common sense and rational. This will be discussed this week with all the swinging weenies. Would like to know what others think. Thanks.
I believe that it very much depends on the situation. Let us assume that this party that is performing the audits are trusted by their client as a credible organisation for performing such audits. (Based on past experience.) Further more the audit is purely a requirement of the client, and is not a legal requirement. In addition, the welding documentation forms only part of the total audit.
Under such a circumstance, as long as the auditing organisation has declared to the client their involvement with the organisation being audited, and the client is happy with this, then I believe everything is OK as regards the audit.
There is however another issue, and this is how such an audit influences the relationship into the future regarding the auditing organisation when it again takes the role of supplier to the organisation that was audited. It is possible that the auditing organisation can bring undue pressure on the audited organisation to use them more as a supplier in the future. If there is such a possibility, it would not be unreasonable to appeal to the client to rather appoint another third party auditor. (Obviously, supplying the necessary justification to the client.) You may also decide to never use the auditing organisation as a supplier again if they try such an underhanded tactic.
Regards
Niekie Jooste
Niekie,
Your post is very close to the actual.
Basically, the auditor will be reviewing his/her own documentation. My client's contact (also my supervisor for the client) agree's with my finding, as well as others within this organization. They do not think it is an acceptable practice for one to review and or approve one's own work.
Please note I have to be very careful about the information I can provide regarding this subject. I cannot divulge details without jeapordizing the clients identity (and my income - a secondary issue). This is a nationally accredted agency and code body organization, also my client. I choose to stick to my guns on this one unless someone can convince me otherwise. The consensus from friends of mine in the same business agree as well about reviewing your own work for any approval.
As far as trust goes, that becomes difficult to explain in a courtroom, or to the proponents.
Thanks for the input, hope to hear from others on this subject.
DXGL,
I believe you are correct to stick to your guns. It sounds like a conflict of interest. The proper people should be made aware of the conditions. It may be possible for the auditing company to have a different person review the welding documents, but ultimately they are in a position where the prospect of continued qualification work could influence decisions on non-conforming conditions. I would suppose that some people could handle the situation properly and professionally, but the questions would always be there.
CHGuilford
I am the QC Manager for my company (AWS-CWI,ASNT Level II UT) we are ICBO certified. ICBO requires independant 3rd party Welder Qualifications. I am also a Certified Welder.Although I could technically perform my own bend tests and fill out my own WQTR, I send my test plates to a 3rd. Party Lab. (My own test plate I mean) that way there is no conflict.I also ask my inspectors to VT any weld I make. I would not audit a Company that I had done any qualification work for any more than I would inspect my own welds. Just my way of thinking.
Regards
If you are referring to your company being an ICBO ES approved fabricator, you are correct in that AC 172 requires welder qualifications to be performed by a third party AWS-QC1 inspector. That is the reason for this provision in the acceptance criteria. Again, a very similar comparison.
My way of thinking as well. You are working for a company with that has an obvious concern for quality. Thanks for the input.
DXGL,
What audit guidelines is the auditor using? In the ISO guidelines for auditors, ISO 10011 Parts 1-3 (soon to be ISO 19000) there is a section addressing auditor independence, unfortunately I don't have copies of these standards near by to quote them exactly. In this section addressing auditor independence my interpretation is that if you had a hand in writing/developing the documentation you really shouldn't be auditing it.
Personally, if I was supposed to be an auditor in this case I would step away from this part of the audit simply to maintain the audit's independence regardless of whether it was internal or external.
-Sean
Sean,
By specifying the auditors rule book, I would expose my client. Our (my client's) guidlines are based somewhat on ISO criteria, I can obtain a copy of the spec you've noted.
CHG,
The unofficial stance for the client as of today is they will proceed as is without modification to the auditors scope. I still disagree with this decision and made that my official stance.
I can type this for now, when I was in the same position as the auditor 3 years ago, my scope of work was limited to what type(s) of work I was performing to any one client I may be auditing in the future. Somewhat disappointing to me with this world-wide-org. I would have expected a little more integrity.
Again, thank you for the input. Other comments or remarks still welcome.
There is some very helpful info on ethics on the ASME website. You can find it at:
http://www.asme.org/ethics/
If you look at the ASME Code of Ethics for Engineers, scroll down to the interpretations and read items 4 a. and b. I believe this would apply to your situation. I agree with your position and don't believe you can have an effective audit if a person is auditing documentation that they had prepared themselves. There would be a strong predisposition to not identify any concerns related to their own work. Good luck.
Marty
An update to all who have responded,
The organization (who is my client) who have chosen to disregard this situation are currently being audited themselves. This issue was noticed by the auditor from the accreditation agency. He agrees with my findings, and a similar finding while observing me - observing an auditor. This is not over yet as far as I'm concerned.
I did note the original finding in my report despite the disagreement by my client. Please note this may possibly terminate my contract with this client, but I think fundamental ethics should be applied here.
The saga continues...
Forum
