From plan to closed nonconformity
PART holds the whole audit together in one place. You set it up against the client's processes, document while you are on site, and follow nonconformities until they are closed with evidence.
The process is the structure
A checklist follows the standard. A process-based audit follows the business. PART is built for the second: you set the audit up around the client's own processes, and requirements are hung on the processes where they are actually meant to be met.
That does two things. The audit makes sense to the client, who recognises their own business in the way it is set up. And it becomes comparable over time, because the next auditor meets the same structure and can read last year's observations against this year's.
The standard does not disappear. Each process carries the clauses it touches, and as you work you can see what is covered and what remains.
Five steps in one system
Plan the audit
Set the assignment up against the client's processes and the standard that applies. Fix the scope, the timing and which auditors take part. The plan is the structure the rest of the work rests on.
Prepare for the visit
The client's documentation, earlier nonconformities and last audit's observations are ready to hand. You travel out with the full history, not with whatever you managed to dig up on the train.
Conduct it on site
Observations are written where they are made and linked to process and requirement in the same note. Coverage adds up as you work, so you see the gaps before you leave the client.
Report
The report is built from what is already documented. You edit and approve, you do not rewrite. Nonconformities are classified and passed on to the client.
Close the nonconformity
The client responds with a root cause analysis and an action. You assess, ask for more or close it, and the evidence stays attached to the nonconformity.
Everything on the same observation
An observation in PART carries its own context. Anyone reading it in two years' time can see what was examined, against which requirement and on what evidence.
Process and scope
Which process the examination covered and what was included in it. The boundary is written down, not implied.
Requirements from the standard
Which clauses the observation answers to. The link is made when the observation is written, not when the report is put together.
Questions and answers
What you asked and what you were told. The basis for the assessment stays in its own wording.
Evidence and records
The documents, procedures and observations you actually looked at. The references sit on the observation, not in a separate spreadsheet.
Assessment and classification
Your conclusion, and whether the observation is a nonconformity or a note. The classification follows through to the report and to the follow-up.
Who and when
Which auditor wrote what, and when. The chain can be followed afterwards without anyone having to remember it.
The chain is built as it is created
Traceability assembled after the fact is a reconstruction. In PART it arises from the work itself.
From requirement to observation
Every clause of the standard can be followed through to the observations that cover it, in this audit and in earlier ones.
From observation to nonconformity
A nonconformity points back to the note it came from, not to a rewritten summary of it.
From nonconformity to closure
Root cause analysis, action, assessment and decision sit in the same thread. You can see what the client promised and what was verified.
Across the whole certification cycle
Three years of audits sit in the same structure. Recurring nonconformities become visible as patterns rather than as a hunch.
The report is not a separate job
The usual order is that the auditor takes notes on site and writes the report in the evening or on the train home. The same observation passes through twice, in two formats, and nobody notices what falls between them until the accreditation is reviewed.
In PART the report is generated from what is already written down. You read it through, adjust the wording and approve it. The format is the same every time and for every auditor, which makes the reports comparable both for the client and for the internal review.
The work afterwards gets shorter for a simple reason: there is nothing left to copy out.
Common questions about the approach
Do we have to change our audit methodology to use PART?
No. PART follows the process-based methodology certification bodies already work to. What changes is where the work is written down, not how the audit is carried out.
Does it work for several standards in the same audit?
Yes. One process can carry requirements from several standards at once, which is the whole point of an integrated audit. Coverage is counted per standard.
What happens if the network is down at the client?
That is a question we would rather answer in a demo, against your own situation, than with a general claim here.
Can several auditors work in the same audit at once?
Yes. The audit team works in the same assignment and sees each other's observations, with access governed by the role each person holds.
See an audit being set up
Half an hour in which we go through how an audit is planned, documented and closed in PART. Bring your own questions about methodology and hosting.
Book a demo