PECB ISO-9001-Lead-Auditor Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

According to ISO 19011:2018, clause 6.3.3, the audit plan should be reviewed and revised as necessary to address changes that occur during the audit planning. The audit plan should be agreed upon, preferably in writing, by the audit team leader, the audit client and the auditee1. Therefore, if there is a significant change in the auditee’s situation, such as the cancellation of all orders for the next week, the audit plan should be reviewed and revised accordingly, with the agreement of all parties involved.

According to ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015, clause 9.1.4, the certification body should have a process to ensure that the audit team has the competence to achieve the audit objectives, and that the audit methods are appropriate for the scope and complexity of the audit. The certification body should also have a process to ensure that the audit is conducted under reasonable conditions and within a reasonable time frame2. Therefore, if there is a risk that the audit objectives cannot be achieved, or that the audit methods are not suitable, due to the change in the auditee’s situation, the certification body should be consulted and informed on how to proceed with the audit.

Therefore, the best action to take is B, ask the certification body you work for how to proceed with the audit. This action will ensure that the audit plan is revised and agreed upon by all parties, and that the audit team has the competence and the methods to conduct the audit effectively and efficiently. The other options are not correct, as they may compromise the quality and validity of the audit:

•A. Start the audit on Monday at ABC’s as planned, interviewing the functions that regularly work at the central office, and plan visits to ABC customers wherever they may be working during the following week: This action may not be feasible or acceptable, as it may extend the audit duration and cost beyond the agreed terms, and it may not provide sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to verify the conformity and effectiveness of the auditee’s processes. Moreover, this action may not be agreed upon by the audit client and the auditee, and it may not be approved by the certification body.

•C. Start the audit on Monday as planned, interviewing the functions that regularly work at the central office, and visit another customer’s premises they cleaned the week before: This action may not be relevant or reliable, as it may not reflect the current performance and condition of the auditee’s processes. The audit evidence collected from the previous customer may not be valid or representative of the audit criteria, and it may not address the risks and opportunities associated with the auditee’s context and objectives. Moreover, this action may not be agreed upon by the audit client and the auditee, and it may not be approved by the certification body.

•D. Complete the audit but ask the quality manager to clean some windows at the ABC’s office, simulating the process they carry out at customers’ premises: This action may not be objective or impartial, as it may introduce bias and influence in the audit process. The audit evidence collected from the simulated process may not be accurate or authentic, and it may not demonstrate the actual capability and effectiveness of the auditee’s processes. Moreover, this action may not be ethical or professional, as it may compromise the integrity and credibility of the audit and the certification.

References: ISO 19011:2018(en), Guidelines for auditing management systems, ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015(en), Conformity assessment — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems — Part 1: Requirements

Based on the scenario and the concept of an ‘audit trail’ within the context of ISO 9001, the three statements that apply would likely be:

A. Decisions on improvement action timescales not involving departmental managers. This indicates a lack of involvement and communication with those responsible for implementing the improvements, which is a key part of an effective audit trail1.

B. Evaluation of the results of the improvement action not always documented by the Quality Manager. Proper documentation is essential for an audit trail, as it provides evidence that actions have been evaluated and are effective1.

C. Limited knowledge of the content of Quality Improvement Requests by departmental staff. An audit trail should ensure that all relevant parties are aware of and understand the actions being taken, which is not the case here1.

These points suggest issues with the communication, documentation, and involvement of relevant personnel in the quality management system processes, which are crucial for maintaining an effective audit trail and, by extension, a robust quality management system.

Here is the correct matching of the activities with the responsible parties in the context of a second-party audit:

Define the audit scope: Customer

Develop the audit plan: Audit team leader

Respond to the audit findings: External provider

Conduct the audit: Audit team

This reflects the typical division of responsibilities in a second-party audit, where the customer (the party commissioning the audit) sets the scope, the audit team leader manages the planning, the external provider responds to findings, and the audit team carries out the audit.