Since the standard doesn't have any requirements regarding accounting and finance, the only way of auditing them is against the organization internal procedures regarding accounting and finance. Department of finance and accounting is often left out from the scope of the QMS, simply because it is perceived that these processes do not affect quality of the product and service and customer satisfaction. In the same way they can be left out from the scope of ISO 9001 internal audit.
In order to verify the internal auditors, they need to demonstrate competences for:
- understanding process approach and risk-based thinking
- understanding of customer specific requirements
- understanding of applicable ISO 9001 and IATF 16949 requirements
- understanding of the core tools, and
- understanding of the auditing techniques.
In order to demonstrate this, the auditors should provide some evidence in terms of experience and training they had on these topics. The training can be conducted by the organization itself, or by some external trainers. Basically, the training records can be sufficient to demonstrate competence. Also, all auditors need to be listed in a record about qualified internal auditors.
Challenge here is that the "line managers" are usually not in a position to review information security ... so to fulfil this what would they actually need to prove/review? The standard does say "review IS processing in their area [...] with appropriate security policies, standards and any other security requirements".
Actually this could be read that, let´s say the production manager has to make sure that OHAS, 9001 etc are correctly followed - so the fulfillment of A18.2.2 is rather an issue outside 27k (and would not require a special Risk Assessment for this)
Answer: The main objective of the section A.18.2 is "to ensure that information security is implemented and operated in accordance with the organizational policies and procedures", so I wouldn't agree with your interpretation that "production manager has to make sure that OHAS, 9001 etc are correctly followed" is related to A18.2.2 because this control speaks about information security implementation, not about quality management o r health & safety.
Considering that, to fulfil control A.18.2.2 managers must define how this will be done. The most common approaches are:
- through review of internal audits results
- through results provided by monitoring and measurement tools
- through the evaluation of the results achieved against security objectives and security performance indicators
Additionally, the managers also must define how eventual non conformities identified will be handled.
Normally, during transition from ISO 9001:2008 to 2015 there is no need to change objectives and policy. Nevertheless, I would recommend you check if the quality policy is appropriated to the context and is aligned with the strategic direction. Concerning the objectives, I would recommend you check if the there is a need to consider statutory or regulatory requirements. And don’t forget the requirements of planning how to meet those objectives.
The following material will provide you details with objectives and quality policy:
Requirements of ISO 27001 to be implemented by the CSP
Answer: You need to implement all the requirements from ISO 27001 clauses 4 to 10, and applicable controls from the Annex A, based on the results of the risk assessment. The standard doesn't specify precisely what the cloud service provider will need to implement - this is something you have to define based on the results of the risk assessment, and require those security controls through the agreement with this provider - the fact that they are already certified doesn't change anything in this approach.
QS 9000 is old version of the quality system requirements related specifically to the automotive industry and is replaced by TS 16949 and later with IATF 16949. Advanced product quality planning (or APQP) is a framework of procedures and techniques used to develop products in industry, particularly the automotive industry.
PDCA (Plan Do Check Act) cycle is a repetitive four-stage model for continuous improvement in business process management and it is integral part of not only ISO 9001 but many other management system standards, such as IATF 16949, ISO 14001, ISO 27001 and many others.
PDCA and APQP are completely different when it comes to their purpose and nature and they are really hard to compare in any way.
Having TS 16949 implies that you have ISO 9001:2008 since TS 16949 is based on ISO 9001 and includes all its requirements plus automotive industry specific requirements. Many certification bodies issue both ISO 9001 and TS 16949 certificates once you pass TS 16949 certification audit.
Both ISO 9001 and TS 16949 have new versions published in last two years and organizations that want to maintain their certificates must conduct the transition of their QMS (Quality Management System) to maintain compliance with the standards and keep their certificates.
Answer: Yes, your organization can change its risk assessment approach any time it seems appropriate, but you should ensure this change is properly approved and recorded, and that the new approach is documented (as required by standard's clause 6.1.2) and well integrated to the other activities in the risk management process (e.g., with the risk treatment plan).
Answer: Since you are performing an internal audit, you should report to the person that requested the internal audit, i.e., the head of the IT department. There is no need to report to the certification body at the moment of the audit realization (but you should note that during regular certification audits an auditor can ask for information about this particular internal audit)
Answer: The risk assessment must be performed by all organization units involved with the ISMS scope (good practice would be the risk assessment being performed by one person from each department), either all together in a single process or in separated processes that will be consolidated later (this will depend on the size of the scope, its complexity, number of people involved, etc.). Regardless of the approach, you should consider the participation of the Information Security Manager, or someone with knowledge on the risk assessment process, to act as facilitator, supporting the organization units personnel to identify, analyse and evaluate the risks concerning their activities.