In general, plan for functional safety audit is sent to supplier. In the plan, checklist is open. Then what supplier has to do is to prepare how to answer this question and what to produce evidences. So, it is like acting according to the written script. But there seem to be hard to defense against it. Why ?
In order for drama to be successfully, all actors have to keep in mind their script and be ready how to act. If your organization has a trouble with defensing against functional safety process audit, it can be a cause for many people involved in the project don’t know what to do, how to do it.
In fact, it is required to continuous process activity in order to be considered as a process compliant. It cannot be done just at once. Have you ever written a one-month diary within two days? Can you keep a consistency in that diary? The weather is really correct? It is similar.
Everything should be recorded, and the recording can be supported as a process evidence. It is a kinds of drama for showing. You have to really be reborn as a actor.
For functional safety manager, the person should be director, not a actor. He or she has to see overall scope not a specific scope. And it is necessary to be a director to do this. It might not be easy to handle this as a actor.
Audit plan is open, so as a director consider it deeply what can impress on auditor. It needs to be considered what activities and what evidence can be regarded as process compliance.
By the way, do you know this consideration(plans) shall be done prior to start project? It sounds common sense in the drama. But what about engineering? Are we the masters of impromptu acting? Absolutely not. That is why many project have failed.
Don’t feel negative because of my expression “acting”. I don’t intend “cheating”. I believe that performance of “Showing” is a really indicator of process compliance. It is quite different to make fraud.