Junction Logistics: planning a two-day surveillance audit
Junction Logistics runs a 24/7 distribution centre on three shifts (06:00–14:00, 14:00–22:00, 22:00–06:00). A surveillance audit is scheduled: two auditor-days, one auditor, two calendar days, 14 processes in scope, with one previous minor nonconformity on forklift preventive maintenance still open. Top management is on site only on day 1 until 10:00; the site quality manager is on leave on day 2. The assigned auditor worked as a shift supervisor at this site until eight months ago and remains in contact with former colleagues. Audit criteria are ISO 9001:2015, the organization's QMS documentation, and a customer-specific logistics standard.
1. What do you do about the auditor's history with the site, and why?
Read the worked answer
ISO 19011 requires threats to impartiality to be identified and eliminated where possible. Two recognised threats are present: self-review (the auditor supervised the shift work the audit must sample and would be judging their own prior decisions) and familiarity (ongoing contact with former colleagues).
Timing matters. Eight months is far too recent; a common practice is a stand-down period of around two years before auditing a former employer or area of responsibility.
Options:
- Replace the auditor with a competent alternate - the cleanest fix, because the auditor's prior role plausibly touched 6–7 of the 14 processes.
- Pairing with a second auditor is a weak fix here: it doubles cost and still leaves the original auditor examining their own shift's records.
Decision. Reassign before the audit, record the reason in the audit programme and plan, and select a replacement with the right technical competence for logistics. Do not rely on a signed self-declaration of independence.
2. Two auditor-days, one auditor, 14 processes. How do you build a plan that is defensible, and what do you explicitly exclude?
Read the worked answer
Do the arithmetic. Two days of roughly 8 hours, less opening and closing meetings, travel, breaks and report writing, leaves about 11–12 hours of audit time for 14 processes - under an hour each. That cannot support depth, so the plan must be risk-based (9.2.2: importance of processes, changes, previous results).
Allocation:
- 1.5–2 hours on the open forklift maintenance nonconformity, split between the maintenance record, correction evidence and effectiveness verification - prior findings must be followed up.
- Highest time to processes feeding the customer-specific standard (dispatch accuracy, handling, returns) and to any process changed in the last 12 months.
- Shift coverage: loading and dispatch controls run on the night shift, so with one auditor either extend day 1 into 22:00 or run day 2 from 06:00 and interview at handover.
- Top management available only day 1 until 10:00 - schedule opening meeting plus 5.1, 5.2, 6.2, 9.1 and 9.3 there.
- Quality manager absent day 2 - secure a named deputy and read-only access to documents and records in advance.
State in the plan what will not be covered this cycle, and carry it to the next audit. An honest limitation is defensible; a claim of full coverage is not.
3. Draft the scope and criteria statement for this audit. What must you confirm before the opening meeting?
Read the worked answer
Scope: distribution centre operations at the named site, all three shifts, the 14 processes listed in the process map revision in force; outsourced transport (8.4) explicitly in or out.
Criteria: ISO 9001:2015; the organization's QMS documentation at its controlled revision; the customer-specific logistics standard at a named revision; applicable legal and regulatory requirements (e.g. dangerous goods handling, load security) where relevant to the processes audited.
Confirm before the opening meeting:
- Is the customer-specific standard available to the audit team, and is the revision current?
- Does the scope genuinely include all shifts, and will night-shift staff be available for interview?
- Is the 8.3 exclusion justification still valid and recorded?
- Is this a surveillance visit - objective is continuing conformity and effectiveness plus follow-up of prior findings, not re-certification?
- Are the site key contact and deputy confirmed in writing?
Ambiguity here is what produces disputes at the closing meeting.