Audit Scope and Proper Interpretation of the Audit Plan
One of the most critical—and often underestimated—steps in preparing for FAMI QS certification audits is correctly understanding the audit scope and thoroughly reviewing the audit plan. A significant portion of audit failures does not stem from inadequate systems, but rather from an incorrect analysis of which areas will be audited, to what depth, and from which perspective. For this reason, the audit plan should not be viewed merely as an organizational document containing dates and times, but as the roadmap of the audit itself.
Within the Kioscert consultancy approach, the audit plan is regarded as a strategic document that must be reviewed in detail weeks before the audit. Proper interpretation of the plan clarifies which processes will be prioritized, which documents must be prepared, and which functions will play an active role during the audit. This approach transforms the audit from a “day full of surprises” into a controlled verification process.
What Does the FAMI QS Audit Scope Mean?
The audit scope defines which activities, product groups, processes, and organizational units are covered by FAMI QS certification. This scope may vary depending on the type of activity, such as feed, feed additives, premixtures, trading, storage, or logistics. Failure to clearly understand the boundaries of the audited areas leads to incorrect prioritization during the preparation phase.
One of the most common mistakes made by organizations is focusing solely on the production area and assuming that trading, purchasing, storage, or outsourced processes are out of scope. However, the FAMI QS system is based on feed safety throughout the entire supply chain. Therefore, when reviewing the audit scope, not only physical production areas but also contracts, supplier management, and logistics processes must be taken into account.
Important Reminder
If the audit scope is misinterpreted, areas assumed to be “out of scope” may become sources of nonconformities during the audit.
Structural Components of the Audit Plan
A FAMI QS audit plan typically includes the audit duration, number of auditors, audit type (initial certification, surveillance, or recertification), and the audit flow. Each heading in the plan provides an important indication of which processes will be examined and within which timeframes.
Careful review of the plan makes it possible to anticipate which areas will be examined in greater depth during the audit. For example, longer time allocations for raw material acceptance, traceability, or process control indicate that the auditor will place particular emphasis on these areas. This information enables proper allocation of resources during the preparation phase.
Audit-Type-Based Interpretation Approach
In initial certification audits, the plan focuses on a holistic evaluation of the system. In such audits, auditors question not only the existence of procedures but also their practical implementation in the field and the overall consistency of the system. Therefore, when reviewing the plan, it is essential to objectively assess whether all system components are fully prepared.
In surveillance audits, the plan is shaped around nonconformities and risk areas identified in previous audits. A common mistake at this stage is perceiving surveillance audits as “lighter” audits. In reality, surveillance audits test the sustainability of the system and often lead to more targeted nonconformities.
Defining Roles and Responsibilities Based on the Audit Plan
Another critical outcome of correctly reviewing the audit plan is clarifying roles and responsibilities for the audit day. It must be determined in advance which unit is responsible for which process and which personnel will present specific evidence. If questions such as “Who will provide this document?” arise during the audit, it indicates insufficient preparation.
In Kioscert practices, internal meetings conducted based on the audit plan significantly increase audit success. During these meetings, the plan is reviewed line by line, responsible individuals are assigned, and potential risk areas are identified in advance. This discipline largely eliminates communication breakdowns on the audit day.
Common Mistakes and Preventive Approach
One frequently encountered mistake is limiting access to the audit plan to top management only. In fact, the plan should also be known and understood by on-site responsible personnel. Otherwise, inconsistent responses may occur during the audit.
Another common mistake is reviewing the plan at the last minute. This approach leaves insufficient time to address gaps and turns the audit into a stressful process. Early analysis of the plan enables fast and effective improvement actions.
"An organization that correctly interprets the audit plan wins half of the audit before it even begins."
Strategic Interpretation from the Kioscert Perspective
Kioscert recommends using the audit plan as a strategic analysis tool when preparing for FAMI QS audits. The plan serves as an important reference not only for the audit day, but also for identifying the system’s strengths and weaknesses. This perspective transforms the audit from a temporary objective into an integral part of the continuous improvement process.
In conclusion, proper interpretation of the audit scope and audit plan is a fundamental success factor that directly affects FAMI QS audit performance. Organizations that manage this step effectively keep the audit under control; those that do not often face unnecessary nonconformities.
Management of Raw Material Risks and Acceptance Criteria
One of the areas where nonconformities are most frequently identified during FAMI QS audits is the management of raw material risks and the systematic application of acceptance criteria. In the feed and feed additives sector, raw materials are the primary determinant of final product safety. For this reason, the FAMI QS approach treats raw materials not merely as procured inputs, but as critical control points that must be managed through risk assessment, traceability, and documented evidence of compliance.
Kioscert consultancy experience shows that many organizations perceive raw material management as a purely operational purchasing activity and fail to fully internalize a risk-based approach. However, when FAMI QS auditors ask the question “Why do you source this raw material from this supplier?” they seek to understand the risk management rationale rather than price or delivery time considerations.
Fundamental Logic of Raw Material Risk Assessment
Within the scope of FAMI QS, raw material risk assessment is conducted based on the type of raw material, its source, intended use, and potential hazards. Chemical risks, physical contamination, microbiological hazards, and the likelihood of cross-contamination constitute the core components of this assessment. Risk assessment should not remain a theoretical exercise; it must be aligned with actual practices implemented in the field.
A common mistake observed during audits is assigning the same risk level to all raw materials. This approach indicates that the system is not truly risk-based. Under the FAMI QS audit logic, higher-risk raw materials are expected to be subject to stricter controls, more extensive evidence, and more detailed verification mechanisms.
Good Practice
Classifying raw materials into low-, medium-, and high-risk categories and defining control frequencies and acceptance criteria accordingly is considered a strong indicator of system maturity during audits.
Definition and Documentation of Acceptance Criteria
Raw material acceptance criteria clearly define the conditions under which a raw material is accepted for production or trade. These criteria should include technical specifications, analysis results, certificates, origin information, and, where necessary, additional verification documents. Acceptance criteria must be managed through written and traceable documents, not verbal practices.
During audits, not only the existence of acceptance criteria but also how they are applied in practice is examined. General statements such as “accepted” are deemed insufficient. Auditors expect to see concrete records demonstrating why a specific raw material batch was accepted or rejected.
Management of Supplier-Related Risks
A significant portion of raw material risks is directly linked to supplier performance and reliability. The FAMI QS system requires not only the approval of suppliers, but also the monitoring and periodic re-evaluation of their performance. This evaluation should focus primarily on feed safety performance rather than price or delivery criteria.
One frequently encountered nonconformity during audits is an outdated “approved supplier list” or a mismatch between approved suppliers and those actually in use. Implementing supplier changes without conducting a risk assessment may lead to major nonconformity risks.
Raw Material Acceptance Process and Operational Discipline
Raw material acceptance is not limited to visual inspection at warehouse entry. Under the FAMI QS approach, the acceptance process is a holistic workflow that includes document checks, physical inspection, batch verification, and, where required, evaluation of analysis results.
Conducting this process with operational discipline ensures that accepted raw materials genuinely meet defined criteria. Auditors closely observe the competence of personnel involved in the acceptance process and the extent to which they take ownership of the process. An “automatic” or routine acceptance approach is considered a system weakness.
Common Errors and Rapid Improvement Actions
One of the most common errors is updating acceptance criteria only shortly before the audit. This approach indicates that the system is not sustainable. Another frequent issue is insufficient verification for high-risk raw materials.
For rapid improvement, effective actions include simplifying risk assessment tables, clarifying acceptance criteria, and standardizing acceptance records. Kioscert observes that small but well-targeted improvements in these areas significantly enhance audit performance.
"An organization that manages raw materials correctly controls the greatest audit risk before it even enters the door."
Strategic Approach from the Kioscert Perspective
Kioscert considers raw material risk management as the backbone of the FAMI QS system. Therefore, organizations are advised to structure acceptance criteria not merely to pass audits, but to genuinely improve feed safety performance.
A well-designed raw material risk management system increases organizational credibility during audits, reduces the number of nonconformities, and ensures a smoother audit process. This discipline is indispensable for the sustainability of FAMI QS certification.
Storage, Traceability, and Batch Management
In FAMI QS audits, storage, traceability, and batch management represent one of the most tangible areas demonstrating whether the system truly functions in practice. Many organizations design their procedures and records correctly in theory; however, when discipline in storage areas and batch-based traceability is insufficient, serious nonconformities may arise during audits. For this reason, this area is among the critical control points that FAMI QS auditors examine with particular attention.
Kioscert experience indicates that the majority of storage and traceability nonconformities stem not from complex system deficiencies, but from simple yet recurring operational errors. Incorrect labeling, mixed batches, missing records, or procedures not applied in the field directly and negatively affect audit performance.
Systematic Management of Storage Areas
Within the scope of FAMI QS, storage areas must be managed as clearly segregated zones for raw materials, semi-finished products, and finished products, planned to minimize risks. Where physical separation is not feasible, additional measures such as visual markings, labeling, and flow control must be implemented. Auditors observe whether this segregation is not only documented in plans but also effectively applied on site.
One commonly observed error is temporarily storing products that should be placed under quarantine in inappropriate areas. Justifications such as “short-term” or “pre-audit” are not accepted by auditors. Clearly defined, identified, and traceable areas are expected for products under quarantine, return, or blocked status.
Good Practice
The use of colored labels indicating product status and floor/shelf markings in storage areas clearly demonstrates implementation discipline during audits.
Traceability Logic and Audit Expectations
Traceability within the FAMI QS system is not merely a record-keeping requirement, but a fundamental assurance mechanism that verifies feed safety. During audits, traceability is typically validated through batch-based trace-back or trace-forward tests. In these tests, the auditor expects to track the journey of a selected product batch from raw materials to dispatch using records.
The most frequently encountered issue in traceability tests is inconsistency among records. Discrepancies between warehouse records, production records, and shipment documents indicate that the system does not operate in an integrated manner. For auditors, the volume of records is less important than their consistency and accessibility.
Batch Identification and Labeling Discipline
Batch management forms the operational foundation of traceability. Each raw material and product batch must be uniquely identified, and this identification must be used consistently across all processes. The appearance of batch numbers in different formats on warehouse labels, production records, and shipment documents is a frequent source of nonconformities during audits.
Labeling should not be limited to batch numbers alone; it must also include information such as product name, status, acceptance date, and, where applicable, expiration date. Auditors pay particular attention to label legibility, durability, and exact correspondence with the products present in the field.
FIFO / FEFO Practices and Record Support
Within the FAMI QS system, storage management must be supported by FIFO (First In First Out) or, where appropriate, FEFO (First Expired First Out) principles. It is not sufficient for these principles to be defined in procedures; their actual implementation must be demonstrated through records and on-site observations.
Auditors verify the consistency of FIFO/FEFO implementation particularly through stock cards, warehouse issue records, and shipment documents. Shipments that contradict chronological order or stock movements that cannot be adequately explained are evaluated as system weaknesses.
Common Errors and Rapid Improvement Actions
Among the most common errors in storage and traceability are mixed batches, incomplete warehouse records, unsubstantiated manual corrections, and the absence of traceability tests. These errors are often reported as nonconformities because they are not identified prior to the audit.
For rapid improvement, effective actions include updating warehouse layout plans, standardizing label formats, and conducting periodic traceability exercises. Kioscert observes that such practices significantly enhance audit performance in a short time.
"If traceability does not work, the system does not work."
Operational Assurance from the Kioscert Perspective
Kioscert considers storage and traceability as the showcase of the FAMI QS system in the field. The discipline demonstrated in these areas clearly indicates to auditors the seriousness with which an organization manages feed safety. A strong storage and batch management structure reduces audit stress and ensures a smoother audit process.
In conclusion, when properly designed, storage, traceability, and batch management become the organization’s strongest line of defense during FAMI QS audits. Investment in these areas is a strategic step not only to pass audits, but also to enhance operational reliability.
Process Control Points and Verification Evidence
In FAMI QS audits, process control points and the verification evidence related to these points constitute one of the most critical evaluation areas that demonstrate how effectively the system operates in practice rather than in theory. Auditors seek to understand not merely the existence of procedures, but how these procedures are integrated into processes and whether control mechanisms are truly implemented. For this reason, process control lies at the core of FAMI QS audit success.
Kioscert field experience shows that although processes are often defined, control points are not sufficiently clarified or verification evidence is not produced consistently. This situation creates the perception during audits that “the system exists but does not function,” thereby increasing the risk of nonconformities.
Identification of Critical and Operational Process Control Points
Process control points are stages within production or trading flows where feed safety risks are present and must be controlled. Within the scope of FAMI QS, these points must be systematically defined throughout the entire chain, from raw material acceptance to storage, production, packaging, and dispatch.
One frequently observed mistake during audits is defining all process steps as “control points.” This approach contradicts risk-based thinking and weakens the effectiveness of control mechanisms. FAMI QS auditors expect to see why specific points are considered critical and which specific controls are applied at those points.
Good Practice
Clearly marking control points on the process flow diagram and defining the responsible person and control method for each point are considered strong evidence during audits.
Control Methods and Operational Discipline
Methods applied at process control points may include visual inspections, measurements, analyses, or document verifications. What matters is that the selected method is capable of effectively controlling the identified risk. The statement “it is controlled” alone is insufficient; how and how often the control is performed must be clearly defined.
Operational discipline is directly linked to the consistency of control methods. Auditors do not limit their review to records from a single day or batch; they also assess historical consistency. Irregular controls or records that appear to have been completed retrospectively may lead to major nonconformity risks.
Understanding the Difference Between Monitoring and Verification
Confusion between monitoring and verification is a common issue encountered during FAMI QS audits. Monitoring refers to routine checks performed at control points, whereas verification involves confirming the effectiveness of these controls through independent or periodic methods.
Auditors expect to see not only monitoring records, but also evidence of verification activities. Internal audits, trend analyses of analytical results, or periodic process reviews constitute verification evidence. Failure to clearly distinguish between these concepts reflects low system maturity.
Structure and Presentation of Verification Evidence
Verification evidence consists of objective data that demonstrates to the auditor that control mechanisms function in practice, not merely on paper. Such evidence may take various forms, including dated records, analysis reports, internal audit findings, and management review outputs.
The organization, accessibility, and clarity of evidence presented during audits are of great importance. When an auditor questions a control point, the ability to quickly access the relevant verification evidence positively influences the flow of the audit. Disorganized or inconsistent presentation of evidence may create a negative perception of system discipline.
Common Errors and Rapid Improvement Actions
Among the most common errors in process control are unclear control points, undefined responsibilities, and the absence of planned verification activities. These deficiencies may lead to cascading nonconformities during audits.
For rapid improvement, effective actions include simplifying process flows, redefining control points based on risk, and incorporating verification activities into an annual plan. Kioscert observes that such structural improvements significantly enhance audit performance in a short time.
"An uncontrolled process means an unmanaged risk."
Strong Process Management from the Kioscert Perspective
Kioscert regards process control points and verification evidence as the technical backbone of the FAMI QS system. The discipline demonstrated in these areas clearly shows auditors that the organization manages feed safety in a systematic and sustainable manner.
In conclusion, when properly designed, process control and verification mechanisms become one of the organization’s strongest defense tools in FAMI QS audits. This structure is indispensable not only for passing audits, but also for ensuring continuous operational safety.
Calibration, Maintenance, and Equipment Suitability
In FAMI QS audits, calibration, maintenance, and equipment suitability are among the critical elements that directly affect the reliability of measurements, the accuracy of process control, and the continuity of feed safety. Although many organizations view this area as a purely technical maintenance activity, the FAMI QS approach considers equipment as an integral part of the system. It is not possible to control a value that cannot be measured; therefore, equipment management is one of the fundamental factors determining audit performance.
Kioscert field observations indicate that calibration and maintenance nonconformities often stem not from complex technical deficiencies, but from weak record discipline and unclear definition of responsibilities. For this reason, FAMI QS auditors evaluate not only technical adequacy, but also the systematic management approach applied in this area.
Identification of Equipment Requiring Calibration
Within the scope of FAMI QS, equipment requiring calibration includes all devices used in measurement and monitoring activities that affect feed safety. Weighing scales, dosing equipment, temperature and humidity measuring devices, metal detectors, and similar equipment fall within this scope. Determination of which equipment is subject to calibration must be based on a risk-based approach.
A frequently encountered error during audits is an incomplete or outdated calibration list. Equipment used in the field but not included in the list may directly result in nonconformities. Therefore, equipment inventories and calibration lists are expected to be fully aligned.
Good Practice
Labeling equipment requiring calibration and visibly displaying the last and next calibration dates on the device are considered strong indicators of good practice during audits.
Calibration Planning and Record Management
Calibration activities must be conducted in accordance with annual or periodic plans. These plans should clearly define the equipment name, calibration frequency, responsible person, and the method to be applied. Unplanned or ad-hoc calibrations are not consistent with a systematic management approach.
Auditors examine not only the existence of calibration certificates, but also their validity and traceability. Certificates issued by accredited bodies and traceability of measurements to national or international standards are of critical importance from an audit perspective.
Maintenance Management and Preventive Approach
Maintenance activities are planned actions carried out to ensure the safe and stable operation of equipment. The FAMI QS system expects maintenance to be addressed through a preventive approach rather than being limited to corrective actions performed after breakdowns. Preventive maintenance minimizes process interruptions and feed safety risks.
During audits, the existence of maintenance plans, implementation records, and post-maintenance checks are examined. In particular, verification of equipment suitability before returning it to production after maintenance is a key control point closely reviewed by auditors.
Equipment Suitability and Hygienic Design
Equipment suitability is not limited to operational functionality alone. The FAMI QS approach expects equipment to have hygienic design, be easy to clean, and possess features that minimize contamination risks. This is particularly critical in feed additives and sensitive processes.
Auditors observe equipment surfaces, maintenance conditions, sealing points, and cleanliness around equipment. Equipment suitability is often evaluated together with the overall order and hygiene conditions of warehouse and production areas.
Common Errors and Rapid Improvement Actions
Common errors in calibration and maintenance include expired calibrations, incomplete maintenance records, and failure to systematically manage equipment changes. These issues may lead to cascading nonconformities during audits.
For rapid improvement, effective actions include updating equipment inventories, simplifying calibration and maintenance plans, and standardizing post-maintenance verification records. Kioscert observes that improvements in these areas significantly enhance audit performance in a short period of time.
Without accurate measurement, there can be no accurate control.
Technical Assurance from the Kioscert Perspective
Kioscert considers calibration and equipment management as the technical assurance mechanism of the FAMI QS system. The discipline demonstrated in these areas clearly shows auditors the extent to which the organization keeps its processes under control.
In conclusion, when properly managed, calibration, maintenance, and equipment suitability become one of the least questioned yet most confidence-inspiring areas during FAMI QS audits. This structure contributes significantly to the smooth progression of the audit.
Complaint, Nonconformity, and Corrective Action Cycle
In FAMI QS audits, the way complaints are handled, how nonconformities are managed, and how effectively the corrective action cycle operates are among the key indicators that directly reflect the maturity of an organization’s system. For auditors, what matters is not that errors never occur, but how problems are addressed, how accurately root causes are analyzed, and how recurrence is prevented.
Kioscert field experience shows that in many organizations, complaint and nonconformity records are only revisited shortly before audits. However, the FAMI QS approach treats this process not as a reactive obligation, but as a management tool positioned at the core of the continuous improvement mechanism.
Systematic Management of Complaints
Complaints may originate from customers, suppliers, or internal sources and provide important signals regarding feed safety performance. The FAMI QS system requires complaints not only to be recorded, but also to be classified, analyzed, and followed up. The statement “there are no complaints” often indicates reporting deficiencies rather than an effective system.
During audits, complaint records are reviewed together with the subject of the complaint, evaluation timeframe, actions taken, and feedback mechanisms. Particularly for complaints directly related to feed safety, prompt and documented intervention is expected.
Good Practice
Classifying complaints according to their relevance to feed safety and defining an accelerated action procedure for high-risk complaints are considered strong indicators of good practice during audits.
Identification and Monitoring of Nonconformities
Nonconformities may be identified during internal audits, routine operations, customer feedback, or external audits. Regardless of their source, the FAMI QS system expects nonconformities to be systematically recorded and monitored.
Auditors assess not only whether nonconformities are listed, but also whether similar nonconformities recur over time. Repeated occurrence of the same type of nonconformity indicates that the corrective action cycle is not functioning effectively.
Corrective Actions and Root Cause Analysis
Corrective actions are planned measures aimed at preventing the recurrence of identified nonconformities. The FAMI QS approach does not consider temporary solutions that merely eliminate symptoms to be sufficient; it requires root cause analysis that targets the underlying reasons for the nonconformity.
One of the most common mistakes observed during audits is superficial root cause analysis. General statements such as “employee negligence” conceal systemic problems and are not considered adequate by auditors. Root cause analysis is expected to examine process-related, equipment-related, training-related, or management-related factors.
Verification of Corrective Action Effectiveness
The corrective action cycle does not end with the implementation of actions. The FAMI QS system also expects verification that the actions taken are truly effective. This verification may be carried out through monitoring results, repeat checks, or performance indicators.
Auditors particularly expect to see effectiveness verification evidence for nonconformities marked as “closed.” The absence of such evidence may be interpreted as the nonconformity not being effectively closed.
Common Errors and Rapid Improvement Actions
Common errors in complaint and nonconformity management include incomplete records, weak root cause analyses, and lack of follow-up on corrective actions. These issues create the perception that the system does not function holistically during audits.
For rapid improvement, effective actions include using standardized complaint forms, simplifying nonconformity tracking tables, and clearly defining corrective actions with responsible persons and target completion dates.
Errors are inevitable; what matters is building a system that learns from them.
Continuous Improvement from the Kioscert Perspective
Kioscert considers complaint and nonconformity management as a performance indicator demonstrating the vitality of the FAMI QS system. Organizations that manage this cycle effectively encounter fewer surprises during audits and control the audit process more confidently.
In conclusion, when properly structured, the complaint, nonconformity, and corrective action cycle becomes one of the strongest mechanisms enhancing organizational credibility during FAMI QS audits.
Audit Day Role Allocation and Evidence Presentation Discipline
In FAMI QS audits, audit day management represents a critical threshold that demonstrates how weeks of preparation are reflected in practice. In many organizations, even when the system infrastructure is sufficient, unnecessary nonconformities may arise due to unclear role allocation on the audit day and disorganized evidence presentation. For this reason, the audit day is a process that requires organizational discipline as much as technical competence.
Kioscert field experience shows that audit day success largely depends on clearly defining in advance “who will present what, when, and how.” Acting improvisationally during the audit poses risks even when the system itself is robust.
Establishing the Audit Day Organizational Structure
The organizational structure for the audit day must be defined in advance in line with the audit plan. The managers attending the opening meeting, process owners, warehouse representatives, and quality representatives must be clearly identified. Providing contradictory answers from different individuals to the auditor creates a negative impression regarding system maturity.
Appointing a main responsible person to manage communication throughout the audit helps keep the process under control. This person coordinates the flow of information between the auditor and the organization and prevents unnecessary loss of time.
Good Practice
Preparing a brief “roles and responsibilities table” for the audit day clearly defines who will present which evidence and significantly reduces audit-related stress.
A Systematic Approach to Evidence Presentation
In FAMI QS audits, evidence presentation is not limited to showing documents. The evidence presented must be directly related to the relevant process, up to date, and traceable. Auditors seek to see functioning systems rather than merely the existence of documents.
One of the most common mistakes in evidence presentation is providing excessive documentation that the auditor did not request. This approach may distract the focus of the audit and lead to unnecessary questions. Evidence should be limited to the scope and subject requested.
Management of Digital and Physical Evidence
Today, many organizations use digital documentation systems. While digital records offer accessibility advantages, it is essential to test how the system will be used on the audit day in advance. Searching for files or encountering access issues during the audit creates an unprofessional impression.
In organizations using physical records, the folder structure must be orderly and up to date. Undated, unsigned, or inconsistent records raise questions regarding system sustainability.
Question–Answer Discipline and Communication Management
Clarity and consistency are essential in communication with auditors. Questions should be answered concisely, accurately, and supported by evidence. Rather than making assumptions about unknown topics, it is more appropriate to consult the relevant record or refer the question to the responsible person.
The use of defensive or overly explanatory language during the audit is not recommended. Auditors aim to understand the organization’s processes; conducting this process in a transparent and cooperative environment positively influences the overall audit atmosphere.
Preparation for the Closing Meeting and Evaluation
The audit day is not limited to the opening meeting and on-site inspections. The closing meeting is a critical phase where audit results are clarified and expectations are explicitly stated. Nonconformities and observations raised during this meeting must be carefully noted, and any misunderstandings should be clarified immediately.
Kioscert recommends viewing the closing meeting not as a “conclusion,” but as the beginning of the improvement process. This perspective enables post-audit actions to be planned more quickly and effectively.
Audit day is the day the system speaks for itself; the better the preparation, the stronger the message.
Audit Day Success from the Kioscert Perspective
Kioscert considers audit day management as the showcase of the FAMI QS certification process. Organizations with clear role allocation, disciplined evidence presentation, and strong communication complete audits with less stress and higher success.
In conclusion, audit day role allocation and evidence presentation discipline are success factors as decisive as technical competence. When managed correctly, FAMI QS audits become not a risk for the organization, but a confirmation of reliability.