Global Community

Hello Ahmed Rashidy,

The transition to ISO 9001:2026 should be the same process  as for the other new ISO Standards that we have done in the past. Each auditor should find out how to improve his competency to effictevely audit the new standard.

The Auditor's certification/qualification organization, such as Exemplar Global, should initiate a process to evaluate the competency of auditors on the basis of their knowledge and understanding of the new standard. Professional auditors amy find out additional significant tools from relevant sources. Each auditor also needs to comply with the new ISO 19011:2026 and to update its profesional development.

There is no a significant challenge for experienced auditors to effectively evaluate the conformity to the requirements of the ISO 9001:2026. We should get shortly some interpretations of the changes from the ISO/TC 176, including the Auditing Protices Group (APG) papers.

Best Regards!

Hello Ahmed Rashidy,

The transition to ISO 9001:2026 should be the same process  as for the other new ISO Standards that we have done in the past. Each auditor should find out how to improve his competency to effictevely audit the new standard.

The Auditor's certification/qualification organization, such as Exemplar Global, should initiate a process to evaluate the competency of auditors on the basis of their knowledge and understanding of the new standard. Professional auditors amy find out additional significant tools from relevant sources. Each auditor also needs to comply with the new ISO 19011:2026 and to update its profesional development.

There is no a significant challenge for experienced auditors to effectively evaluate the conformity to the requirements of the ISO 9001:2026. We should get shortly some interpretations of the changes from the ISO/TC 176, including the Auditing Protices Group (APG) papers.

Best Regards!

------------------------------
Marc Kanho
Senior QMS Lead Auditor and Consultant
K-Marc Canada
------------------------------

Dear Marc,

Thank you for this valuable perspective and for pointing to the Auditing Practices Group.

I agree that experienced auditors should be able to adapt to the revised standard through structured professional development and a sound understanding of the changes. I also agree that guidance from ISO/TC 176 and the APG will be particularly valuable once the new edition is published.

The point I am especially interested in exploring is what comes after knowledge and understanding: how we can evaluate whether professional judgement itself remains consistent and defensible when different auditors are presented with the same evidence.

Your suggestion regarding APG is very useful, and I will certainly review the relevant guidance as this discussion develops.

Thank you again for contributing to the discussion.

Hello Ahmed Rashidy,

The transition to ISO 9001:2026 should be the same process  as for the other new ISO Standards that we have done in the past. Each auditor should find out how to improve his competency to effictevely audit the new standard.

The Auditor's certification/qualification organization, such as Exemplar Global, should initiate a process to evaluate the competency of auditors on the basis of their knowledge and understanding of the new standard. Professional auditors amy find out additional significant tools from relevant sources. Each auditor also needs to comply with the new ISO 19011:2026 and to update its profesional development.

There is no a significant challenge for experienced auditors to effectively evaluate the conformity to the requirements of the ISO 9001:2026. We should get shortly some interpretations of the changes from the ISO/TC 176, including the Auditing Protices Group (APG) papers.

Best Regards!

Ahmed, the honest answer from the certification body side is that judgement gets evaluated properly in one place, the witnessed audit, and then almost nowhere else until something goes wrong. What a witness assessor is really testing is whether the finding can be traced back to what the auditor actually saw and heard, and whether the requirements that were passed over were passed over for a defensible reason. You can usually tell from a report within a few minutes whether someone audited the process or the procedure index.

On consistency, the cheapest test I know is to put two auditors on the same process on the same day and compare their reasoning rather than their findings. Different findings are often healthy. What should worry you is when one of them cannot say what evidence would have changed their mind. In the courses I run, the exercise students struggle with most is never writing the nonconformity, it is defending the sample they chose, and that is the muscle no exam gets near.

Dear Marc,

Thank you for this valuable perspective and for pointing to the Auditing Practices Group.

I agree that experienced auditors should be able to adapt to the revised standard through structured professional development and a sound understanding of the changes. I also agree that guidance from ISO/TC 176 and the APG will be particularly valuable once the new edition is published.

The point I am especially interested in exploring is what comes after knowledge and understanding: how we can evaluate whether professional judgement itself remains consistent and defensible when different auditors are presented with the same evidence.

Your suggestion regarding APG is very useful, and I will certainly review the relevant guidance as this discussion develops.

Thank you again for contributing to the discussion.

Hello Ahmed Rashidy,

The transition to ISO 9001:2026 should be the same process  as for the other new ISO Standards that we have done in the past. Each auditor should find out how to improve his competency to effictevely audit the new standard.

The Auditor's certification/qualification organization, such as Exemplar Global, should initiate a process to evaluate the competency of auditors on the basis of their knowledge and understanding of the new standard. Professional auditors amy find out additional significant tools from relevant sources. Each auditor also needs to comply with the new ISO 19011:2026 and to update its profesional development.

There is no a significant challenge for experienced auditors to effectively evaluate the conformity to the requirements of the ISO 9001:2026. We should get shortly some interpretations of the changes from the ISO/TC 176, including the Auditing Protices Group (APG) papers.

Best Regards!

Thank you, Dilawar. This is an excellent distinction.

Consistency should not necessarily mean identical findings; it should mean that the auditor's reasoning is traceable, evidence-based and defensible.

Your point about asking what evidence would have changed the auditor's mind is particularly powerful, because it tests whether judgement is genuinely evidence-led rather than conclusion-led.

I also agree that defending the sampling decision may reveal more about audit competence than simply writing the nonconformity itself.

This raises an interesting question: should witnessed audits and paired/calibration exercises become a recurring part of auditor competence maintenance, rather than being used mainly during qualification or when performance concerns arise?

Ahmed, the honest answer from the certification body side is that judgement gets evaluated properly in one place, the witnessed audit, and then almost nowhere else until something goes wrong. What a witness assessor is really testing is whether the finding can be traced back to what the auditor actually saw and heard, and whether the requirements that were passed over were passed over for a defensible reason. You can usually tell from a report within a few minutes whether someone audited the process or the procedure index.

On consistency, the cheapest test I know is to put two auditors on the same process on the same day and compare their reasoning rather than their findings. Different findings are often healthy. What should worry you is when one of them cannot say what evidence would have changed their mind. In the courses I run, the exercise students struggle with most is never writing the nonconformity, it is defending the sample they chose, and that is the muscle no exam gets near.

Dear Marc,

Thank you for this valuable perspective and for pointing to the Auditing Practices Group.

I agree that experienced auditors should be able to adapt to the revised standard through structured professional development and a sound understanding of the changes. I also agree that guidance from ISO/TC 176 and the APG will be particularly valuable once the new edition is published.

The point I am especially interested in exploring is what comes after knowledge and understanding: how we can evaluate whether professional judgement itself remains consistent and defensible when different auditors are presented with the same evidence.

Your suggestion regarding APG is very useful, and I will certainly review the relevant guidance as this discussion develops.

Thank you again for contributing to the discussion.

Hello Ahmed Rashidy,

The transition to ISO 9001:2026 should be the same process  as for the other new ISO Standards that we have done in the past. Each auditor should find out how to improve his competency to effictevely audit the new standard.

The Auditor's certification/qualification organization, such as Exemplar Global, should initiate a process to evaluate the competency of auditors on the basis of their knowledge and understanding of the new standard. Professional auditors amy find out additional significant tools from relevant sources. Each auditor also needs to comply with the new ISO 19011:2026 and to update its profesional development.

There is no a significant challenge for experienced auditors to effectively evaluate the conformity to the requirements of the ISO 9001:2026. We should get shortly some interpretations of the changes from the ISO/TC 176, including the Auditing Protices Group (APG) papers.

Best Regards!

Hello,

Are we competent to audit ISO 9001:2015/Amd.1:2024? 

The ISO 9001:2026 is not for the competency of auditors but a new version of Quality Management Systems (QMS) - Requirements. However, the ISO 19011:2026 provides guidance on audit principles, procedures and techniques - supporting more consistent, reliable and effectives audits of management systems such as ISO 9001 and ISO 14001.

Therefore, we may need to exchange on the changes (if any significant) to the ISO 19011:2026 and how to get new competency if we need it. Additional auditing requirements should be addressed in the new version of ISO/IEC 17011 and IS0/IEC 17021 for auditors of certification bodies.

Thank you and best regards! 

Thank you, Dilawar. This is an excellent distinction.

Consistency should not necessarily mean identical findings; it should mean that the auditor's reasoning is traceable, evidence-based and defensible.

Your point about asking what evidence would have changed the auditor's mind is particularly powerful, because it tests whether judgement is genuinely evidence-led rather than conclusion-led.

I also agree that defending the sampling decision may reveal more about audit competence than simply writing the nonconformity itself.

This raises an interesting question: should witnessed audits and paired/calibration exercises become a recurring part of auditor competence maintenance, rather than being used mainly during qualification or when performance concerns arise?

Ahmed, the honest answer from the certification body side is that judgement gets evaluated properly in one place, the witnessed audit, and then almost nowhere else until something goes wrong. What a witness assessor is really testing is whether the finding can be traced back to what the auditor actually saw and heard, and whether the requirements that were passed over were passed over for a defensible reason. You can usually tell from a report within a few minutes whether someone audited the process or the procedure index.

On consistency, the cheapest test I know is to put two auditors on the same process on the same day and compare their reasoning rather than their findings. Different findings are often healthy. What should worry you is when one of them cannot say what evidence would have changed their mind. In the courses I run, the exercise students struggle with most is never writing the nonconformity, it is defending the sample they chose, and that is the muscle no exam gets near.

Dear Marc,

Thank you for this valuable perspective and for pointing to the Auditing Practices Group.

I agree that experienced auditors should be able to adapt to the revised standard through structured professional development and a sound understanding of the changes. I also agree that guidance from ISO/TC 176 and the APG will be particularly valuable once the new edition is published.

The point I am especially interested in exploring is what comes after knowledge and understanding: how we can evaluate whether professional judgement itself remains consistent and defensible when different auditors are presented with the same evidence.

Your suggestion regarding APG is very useful, and I will certainly review the relevant guidance as this discussion develops.

Thank you again for contributing to the discussion.

Hello Ahmed Rashidy,

The transition to ISO 9001:2026 should be the same process  as for the other new ISO Standards that we have done in the past. Each auditor should find out how to improve his competency to effictevely audit the new standard.

The Auditor's certification/qualification organization, such as Exemplar Global, should initiate a process to evaluate the competency of auditors on the basis of their knowledge and understanding of the new standard. Professional auditors amy find out additional significant tools from relevant sources. Each auditor also needs to comply with the new ISO 19011:2026 and to update its profesional development.

There is no a significant challenge for experienced auditors to effectively evaluate the conformity to the requirements of the ISO 9001:2026. We should get shortly some interpretations of the changes from the ISO/TC 176, including the Auditing Protices Group (APG) papers.

Best Regards!

Thank you, Dilawar. This is an excellent distinction.

Consistency should not necessarily mean identical findings; it should mean that the auditor's reasoning is traceable, evidence-based and defensible.

Your point about asking what evidence would have changed the auditor's mind is particularly powerful, because it tests whether judgement is genuinely evidence-led rather than conclusion-led.

I also agree that defending the sampling decision may reveal more about audit competence than simply writing the nonconformity itself.

This raises an interesting question: should witnessed audits and paired/calibration exercises become a recurring part of auditor competence maintenance, rather than being used mainly during qualification or when performance concerns arise?

Ahmed, the honest answer from the certification body side is that judgement gets evaluated properly in one place, the witnessed audit, and then almost nowhere else until something goes wrong. What a witness assessor is really testing is whether the finding can be traced back to what the auditor actually saw and heard, and whether the requirements that were passed over were passed over for a defensible reason. You can usually tell from a report within a few minutes whether someone audited the process or the procedure index.

On consistency, the cheapest test I know is to put two auditors on the same process on the same day and compare their reasoning rather than their findings. Different findings are often healthy. What should worry you is when one of them cannot say what evidence would have changed their mind. In the courses I run, the exercise students struggle with most is never writing the nonconformity, it is defending the sample they chose, and that is the muscle no exam gets near.

Dear Marc,

Thank you for this valuable perspective and for pointing to the Auditing Practices Group.

I agree that experienced auditors should be able to adapt to the revised standard through structured professional development and a sound understanding of the changes. I also agree that guidance from ISO/TC 176 and the APG will be particularly valuable once the new edition is published.

The point I am especially interested in exploring is what comes after knowledge and understanding: how we can evaluate whether professional judgement itself remains consistent and defensible when different auditors are presented with the same evidence.

Your suggestion regarding APG is very useful, and I will certainly review the relevant guidance as this discussion develops.

Thank you again for contributing to the discussion.

Hello Ahmed Rashidy,

The transition to ISO 9001:2026 should be the same process  as for the other new ISO Standards that we have done in the past. Each auditor should find out how to improve his competency to effictevely audit the new standard.

The Auditor's certification/qualification organization, such as Exemplar Global, should initiate a process to evaluate the competency of auditors on the basis of their knowledge and understanding of the new standard. Professional auditors amy find out additional significant tools from relevant sources. Each auditor also needs to comply with the new ISO 19011:2026 and to update its profesional development.

There is no a significant challenge for experienced auditors to effectively evaluate the conformity to the requirements of the ISO 9001:2026. We should get shortly some interpretations of the changes from the ISO/TC 176, including the Auditing Protices Group (APG) papers.

Best Regards!

Ahmed, yes, and the hook already exists because certification bodies have to witness their auditors periodically. The trouble is that the witness is run as a compliance event rather than a development one, so it gets scheduled for whoever is due rather than for the audit that would actually stretch them, and the feedback rarely goes past a rating sheet.

If I could change one thing it would be to pair auditors on a real assignment once or twice a year with no assessment attached. People say what they actually thought when nobody is scoring them, and that conversation, not the form, is where calibration happens.

Thank you, Dilawar. This is an excellent distinction.

Consistency should not necessarily mean identical findings; it should mean that the auditor's reasoning is traceable, evidence-based and defensible.

Your point about asking what evidence would have changed the auditor's mind is particularly powerful, because it tests whether judgement is genuinely evidence-led rather than conclusion-led.

I also agree that defending the sampling decision may reveal more about audit competence than simply writing the nonconformity itself.

This raises an interesting question: should witnessed audits and paired/calibration exercises become a recurring part of auditor competence maintenance, rather than being used mainly during qualification or when performance concerns arise?

Ahmed, the honest answer from the certification body side is that judgement gets evaluated properly in one place, the witnessed audit, and then almost nowhere else until something goes wrong. What a witness assessor is really testing is whether the finding can be traced back to what the auditor actually saw and heard, and whether the requirements that were passed over were passed over for a defensible reason. You can usually tell from a report within a few minutes whether someone audited the process or the procedure index.

On consistency, the cheapest test I know is to put two auditors on the same process on the same day and compare their reasoning rather than their findings. Different findings are often healthy. What should worry you is when one of them cannot say what evidence would have changed their mind. In the courses I run, the exercise students struggle with most is never writing the nonconformity, it is defending the sample they chose, and that is the muscle no exam gets near.

Dear Marc,

Thank you for this valuable perspective and for pointing to the Auditing Practices Group.

I agree that experienced auditors should be able to adapt to the revised standard through structured professional development and a sound understanding of the changes. I also agree that guidance from ISO/TC 176 and the APG will be particularly valuable once the new edition is published.

The point I am especially interested in exploring is what comes after knowledge and understanding: how we can evaluate whether professional judgement itself remains consistent and defensible when different auditors are presented with the same evidence.

Your suggestion regarding APG is very useful, and I will certainly review the relevant guidance as this discussion develops.

Thank you again for contributing to the discussion.

Hello Ahmed Rashidy,

The transition to ISO 9001:2026 should be the same process  as for the other new ISO Standards that we have done in the past. Each auditor should find out how to improve his competency to effictevely audit the new standard.

The Auditor's certification/qualification organization, such as Exemplar Global, should initiate a process to evaluate the competency of auditors on the basis of their knowledge and understanding of the new standard. Professional auditors amy find out additional significant tools from relevant sources. Each auditor also needs to comply with the new ISO 19011:2026 and to update its profesional development.

There is no a significant challenge for experienced auditors to effectively evaluate the conformity to the requirements of the ISO 9001:2026. We should get shortly some interpretations of the changes from the ISO/TC 176, including the Auditing Protices Group (APG) papers.

Best Regards!

Hi Dilawar, I think this is a very important distinction.

If witnessed audits are treated mainly as compliance events, they may confirm that a requirement has been met without necessarily creating meaningful development.

Your idea of pairing auditors on a real assignment without attaching a score is especially interesting, because it shifts the focus from "passing the assessment" to comparing reasoning, evidence selection and judgement.

That kind of calibration conversation may reveal far more than a formal rating sheet.

Perhaps the real opportunity is to separate two purposes more clearly: assurance that competence exists, and development that improves the quality and consistency of judgement over time.

Ahmed, yes, and the hook already exists because certification bodies have to witness their auditors periodically. The trouble is that the witness is run as a compliance event rather than a development one, so it gets scheduled for whoever is due rather than for the audit that would actually stretch them, and the feedback rarely goes past a rating sheet.

If I could change one thing it would be to pair auditors on a real assignment once or twice a year with no assessment attached. People say what they actually thought when nobody is scoring them, and that conversation, not the form, is where calibration happens.

Thank you, Dilawar. This is an excellent distinction.

Consistency should not necessarily mean identical findings; it should mean that the auditor's reasoning is traceable, evidence-based and defensible.

Your point about asking what evidence would have changed the auditor's mind is particularly powerful, because it tests whether judgement is genuinely evidence-led rather than conclusion-led.

I also agree that defending the sampling decision may reveal more about audit competence than simply writing the nonconformity itself.

This raises an interesting question: should witnessed audits and paired/calibration exercises become a recurring part of auditor competence maintenance, rather than being used mainly during qualification or when performance concerns arise?

Ahmed, the honest answer from the certification body side is that judgement gets evaluated properly in one place, the witnessed audit, and then almost nowhere else until something goes wrong. What a witness assessor is really testing is whether the finding can be traced back to what the auditor actually saw and heard, and whether the requirements that were passed over were passed over for a defensible reason. You can usually tell from a report within a few minutes whether someone audited the process or the procedure index.

On consistency, the cheapest test I know is to put two auditors on the same process on the same day and compare their reasoning rather than their findings. Different findings are often healthy. What should worry you is when one of them cannot say what evidence would have changed their mind. In the courses I run, the exercise students struggle with most is never writing the nonconformity, it is defending the sample they chose, and that is the muscle no exam gets near.

Dear Marc,

Thank you for this valuable perspective and for pointing to the Auditing Practices Group.

I agree that experienced auditors should be able to adapt to the revised standard through structured professional development and a sound understanding of the changes. I also agree that guidance from ISO/TC 176 and the APG will be particularly valuable once the new edition is published.

The point I am especially interested in exploring is what comes after knowledge and understanding: how we can evaluate whether professional judgement itself remains consistent and defensible when different auditors are presented with the same evidence.

Your suggestion regarding APG is very useful, and I will certainly review the relevant guidance as this discussion develops.

Thank you again for contributing to the discussion.

Hello Ahmed Rashidy,

The transition to ISO 9001:2026 should be the same process  as for the other new ISO Standards that we have done in the past. Each auditor should find out how to improve his competency to effictevely audit the new standard.

The Auditor's certification/qualification organization, such as Exemplar Global, should initiate a process to evaluate the competency of auditors on the basis of their knowledge and understanding of the new standard. Professional auditors amy find out additional significant tools from relevant sources. Each auditor also needs to comply with the new ISO 19011:2026 and to update its profesional development.

There is no a significant challenge for experienced auditors to effectively evaluate the conformity to the requirements of the ISO 9001:2026. We should get shortly some interpretations of the changes from the ISO/TC 176, including the Auditing Protices Group (APG) papers.

Best Regards!