Pass the PECB ISO 9001 ISO-9001-Lead-Auditor Questions and answers with Dumpstech

According to ISO 19011:2018, clause 6.7, the audit follow-up is the process of verifying the completion and effectiveness of corrective actions taken by the auditee as a result of an audit. The audit follow-up can include two main activities:

Verifying the effectiveness of the implemented corrective actions: this means checking whether the actions taken by the auditee have addressed the root causes of the nonconformities and prevented their recurrence or occurrence in other areas. The verification can be done by reviewing documents, records, data, or other evidence provided by the auditee, or by conducting a follow-up audit on site or remotely.

Verifying corrections taken to fix the reported non-conformities: this means checking whether the auditee has corrected the nonconformities identified during the audit and eliminated their immediate effects. The verification can be done by reviewing documents, records, data, or other evidence provided by the auditee, or by conducting a follow-up audit on site or remotely.

The audit follow-up can be conducted as a separate audit or as part of a subsequent audit, depending on the audit programme, the audit objectives, the audit criteria, the audit scope, the audit risks, and the audit findings. The audit follow-up should be planned and conducted in accordance with the same principles and processes as the initial audit, and the results should be documented and reported accordingly. References:

ISO 19011:2018(en), Guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.7

ISO 19011 Management Systems Audit Checklist | Process Street, task 6.7.1 and 6.7.2

Conducting the Audit Follow-Up: When to Verify - The Auditor, section “Conducting the audit follow-up”

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

According to ISO 17021-1:2015 (Conformity Assessment – Requirements for Certification Bodies), Clause 9.3.1.2, the Stage 1 Audit typically consumes around 30% of the total audit time.

This time is allocated to:

Reviewing documented information.

Assessing the readiness for Stage 2.

Identifying potential nonconformities.

A 20% allocation (Answer A) is too low, and 40% (Answer C) is excessive, as the majority of the audit should be spent on Stage 2 (on-site verification).

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

An autocratic management style is characterized by:

Top management making all decisions without delegation.

Strict control over employees.

A lack of employee input in decision-making.

Centralized management (Answer C) refers to decision-making being concentrated at the top, but it does not necessarily imply strict control. Laissez-faire management (Answer B) allows employees high independence, which contradicts the scenario.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Certification bodies must remain independent and impartial. If a certification body (ABC-CERT) provides consulting services to an organization through its subsidiary (Consultancy ABC), it cannot later certify the same organization.

Clause References:

ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015, Clause 5.2.5 – Impartiality Requirements:

A certification body must not certify an organization to which it has provided consultancy services.

ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015, Clause 5.2.6:

Subsidiaries of certification bodies must not provide consulting services to prevent conflicts of interest.

Why is the Correct Answer C?

Certifying a client after providing consultancy creates a conflict of interest and violates ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 impartiality rules.

The certification body (ABC-CERT) and consultancy firm (Consultancy ABC) are related entities, making it impossible to remain objective and independent.

Why are the Other Options Incorrect?

A (Waiting two years) → ISO does not specify a time frame; the issue is impartiality, not just time.

B (Signing an agreement to ensure objectivity) → Conflicts of interest cannot be resolved through an agreement; independence is required.

According to ISO 9001:2015, clause 4.1, the organisation must determine the external and internal issues that are relevant to its purpose and that affect its ability to achieve the intended results of its quality management system. The organisation must also monitor and review the information about these issues. SWOT analysis is a tool that can help the organisation to identify its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. However, the SWOT analysis alone is not sufficient to comply with the requirement, as the organisation also needs to review the information periodically and update it as necessary. Therefore, one audit trail would be to establish how the organisation reviews information about external and internal issues, such as how often, by whom, using what criteria, and with what results. 123

According to ISO 9001:2015, clause 10.3, the organisation must continually improve the suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness of the quality management system. The organisation must also consider the results of analysis and evaluation, and the outputs from management review, to determine if there are any needs or opportunities for improvement. SWOT analysis can help the organisation to identify the areas where improvement is needed or possible, such as addressing the weaknesses and threats, or exploiting the strengths and opportunities. However, the SWOT analysis alone is not sufficient to comply with the requirement, as the organisation also needs to take actions to implement the improvement, such as setting objectives, allocating resources, assigning responsibilities, and evaluating the effectiveness. Therefore, another audit trail would be to establish what actions were taken to improve the QMS, such as what, when, by whom, how, and with what results. 124 References:

1: ISO 9001:2015 - Quality management systems — Requirements

2: Advisera, “Context of the organization in ISO 9001:2015 explained”, https://advisera.com/9001academy/knowledgebase/how-to-identify-the-context-of-the-organization-in-iso-90012015/

3: ISO Templates, “ISO 9001 - Clause 4: Context of the organisation explained”, https://resources.iso-templates.com/blog/iso-9001-clause-4-context-of-the-organisation-explained

4: Advisera, “How to implement continual improvement in ISO 9001”, https://advisera.com/9001academy/knowledgebase/how-to-implement-continual-improvement-in-iso-9001/

ISO 9001:2015 does not define detailed audit role terminology itself, but it explicitly refers to ISO 19011 for audit guidance. This makes ISO 19011 authoritative for defining audit roles and responsibilities within ISO 9001 audits.

ISO 9001:2015, Clause 9.2.2 – NOTE:

“See ISO 19011 for guidance.”

Therefore, the correctness of the statements is determined using ISO 19011 (Auditing management systems) principles, which are fully applicable to second-party audits.

✅ B. An auditor is a person who conducts an audit

✔ Correct

ISO 19011 defines an auditor simply and clearly as “a person who conducts an audit.”

This definition applies equally to first-, second-, and third-party audits.

This statement is universally correct and fully aligned with ISO auditing terminology.

✅ F. When needed, a translator appointed by the auditee

✔ Correct

ISO 19011 allows the use of translators/interpreters to support communication during audits.

Translators are typically appointed by the auditee, not the audit team.

Translators are not members of the audit team and do not influence audit conclusions.

This is a valid and correct statement for second-party audits.

❌ Why the other options are incorrect

❌ A. Guide appointed by the audit team leader

In ISO 19011, a guide is appointed by the auditee, not by the audit team leader.

The guide assists with logistics and access, not audit execution.

❌ Incorrect appointment authority.

❌ C. The audit team cannot include auditors-in-training

ISO 19011 explicitly allows auditors-in-training to be part of the audit team under supervision.

❌ Incorrect restriction.

❌ D. Observer provides information about the organisation

An observer does not provide information or participate in the audit.

Observers may attend (e.g. regulators, accreditation bodies) but remain passive.

❌ Incorrect role description.

❌ E. A technical expert is part of the audit team

A technical expert supports the audit team, but is not considered an auditor.

They provide subject-matter expertise under the direction of auditors.

❌ The statement is misleading and therefore incorrect.

According to the ISO 9001 Auditing Practices Group Guidance on Improvement Opportunities1, an improvement opportunity is a suggestion made by the auditor for the auditee to consider that, if implemented, may enhance the performance of the QMS. Improvement opportunities are not mandatory, but they should be based on objective evidence and aligned with the audit criteria and objectives. Improvement opportunities should also be realistic, feasible, and beneficial for the auditee. In this case, the evidence statements that represent acceptable improvement opportunities in the report are A, C, and E, because they address the potential causes and effects of the spelling errors in the print run, and propose possible actions that may improve the quality of the products and services, and the effectiveness of the QMS. These options are consistent with the requirements and principles of ISO 9001, such as clause 6.1 on actions to address risks and opportunities, clause 8.1 on operational planning and control, clause 8.5.1 on control of production and service provision, and clause 10.2 on nonconformity and corrective action. The other options are not appropriate improvement opportunities, because they are either irrelevant, unrealistic, or unhelpful for the auditee. For example, option B may contradict the audit objective and scope, option D may imply a lack of auditor competence or impartiality, option F may not address the root cause of the problem, option G may not be applicable or effective, and option H may not be feasible or justified. References: ISO 9001 Auditing Practices Group Guidance on Improvement Opportunities, ISO 9001:2015, ISO 9001 Auditing Practices Group Guidance on Audit Evidence

According to ISO 9001:2015, clause 8.4, an organization is required to control the processes, products and services provided by external providers, including those that affect the quality of the organization’s own products and services. This includes determining the controls to be applied to the external provision of processes, products and services, as well as the information to be communicated to the external providers. The organization is also required to monitor, measure, and evaluate the performance of the external providers and retain documented information of these activities.

Therefore, in the scenario given, ABC Ltd is responsible for controlling the processes, products and services provided by Teak Ltd, as they affect the quality of ABC Ltd’s own products and services. This means that ABC Ltd should have established criteria and methods for evaluating the performance of Teak Ltd, as well as documented information of the results of such evaluation. ABC Ltd should also have defined the supply arrangements with Teak Ltd, including the specifications, requirements, and verification activities related to the products and services provided by Teak Ltd.

Hence, the best options to describe how to plan the audit of the interrelationship with Teak Ltd during the Stage 2 audit at ABC Ltd are A and D, as they are aligned with the requirements of ISO 9001:2015, clause 8.4. The other options are either irrelevant or beyond the scope of the audit, as they do not pertain to the control of external provision by ABC Ltd.