RE: ISO Document Control

Subject: RE: ISO Document Control
From: "McLauchlan, Kevin" <Kevin -dot- McLauchlan -at- safenet-inc -dot- com>
To: Peter Neilson <neilson -at- windstream -dot- net>, Sally Derrick <sjd1201 -at- gmail -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:36:49 -0400

I guess it depends on the industry/milieu and the standards-compliance
being audited, but my experience with ISO 900x is that the auditor
simply records any shortcomings in a report. They might, or might not
offer suggestions for a fix, or provide clarifying background
about what's wrong or what has been misinterpreted or overlooked.

You (the company) have X-amount-of-time to fix the shortfalls, before
the auditor looks again. If you have not fixed, you must at least
show that effort has been expended and that there's a path forward.
If the problem is fixed, that's it for that one.
If the problem is being addressed, but not yet fixed, that's usually
cause for the shortfall to be downgraded (it's been acknowledged and
action is being taken), at least until the next audit cycle.

As for Peter... was that the pony ride thing? Or am I thinking
of somebody else?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: techwr-l-bounces+kevin -dot- mclauchlan=safenet-inc -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-
> [mailto:techwr-l-bounces+kevin.mclauchlan=safenet-
> inc -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On Behalf Of Peter Neilson
> Sent: October-28-11 12:39 PM
> To: Sally Derrick
> Cc: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> Subject: Re: ISO Document Control
> She says, "Welcome to bureaucracy." She reminds me to tell you about
> the
> inspector who put us out of part of our business by inventing an
> interpretation of USDA regulations that would require us to spend over
> $100,000 on improvements to maintain an operation that was adding a
> gross
> of $3000 per year. There was no feasible way to fight, and the
> inspector
> (who had a personal agenda in the area of aminal rghits) knew that.
> A sign at the local electrical supply company says, "Arguing with the
> inspector is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After a while you
> come
> to the realization that the pig enjoys it."
> You are supposed to second-guess the auditor, and guess correctly.
> That's
> why I mentioned creative paranoia.
> Often it seems that the major purpose of any bureaucracy is to maintain
> the bureaucracy. That alone is a reason to avoid bureaucracy.
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:56:46 -0400, 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

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.

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit

To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.

Please move off-topic discussions to the Chat list, at:


ISO Document Control: From: Sally Derrick
Re: ISO Document Control: From: Scott Turner
Re: ISO Document Control: From: Keith Hood
Re: ISO Document Control: From: Sally Derrick
Re: ISO Document Control: From: Gene Kim-Eng
Re: ISO Document Control: From: Peter Neilson
Re: ISO Document Control: From: Sally Derrick
Re: ISO Document Control: From: Peter Neilson

Previous by Author: RE: ISO Document Control
Next by Author: RE: Certification -- what's in it for writers
Previous by Thread: Re: ISO Document Control
Next by Thread: On the other side of the fence from Re: ISO Document Control

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads