Time for me ask a question. I tried the serach function but didnt locate an answer to this. I want to change our company's method of auditing some procedures. We have always performed procedure based audits, registered for 4 years now, but I think we could gain more if audits were completed differently.

Our current method is to audit each documented procedure we have two times annually. These audits are performed by a group of 8, paired in teams of two for each audit. All auditors have other job functions not usually related to the quality department.

Has anyone tried the approach of supervisors auditing work cells in other areas? What I envision is a supervisor from one cell going into anther cell and looking for evidence of multiple items. This would include training records, id of material, handling of NC product, proper work instructions, and everthing else necessary to meet the standards we have established. Each auditor would be provided with an outline of what to look for and a time frame for completion.

The goal behind it is increased frequency of audits in areas, increasing the number of auditors and increasing the team aproach. The two biggest obstacles we continue to face are consistency (once an audit is over people put less of an empahsis on items they dont feel are improatnt but required in the standard) and team buy-in (the feeling that I'm just a pee-on and what I say or do isnt improtant in the grand scheme of things).

Any one auditng like this? Any thoughts on a method like this? I'll consider any feedback good feedback. :)

We just implemented this. Our supervisors were doing a much shorter version, just prior to an external audit, just as a double check. I took their check list, explanded on it, and now we use it as an internal audit, with all work areas being done on every shift as least once yearly.

As this is new to us, I would love feedback from anybody that cares to comment.

Hope this helps you some!!

Sounds like a great idea. In an organization operating based on a lean (e.g., Toyota Production System) philosophy the job of supervisors is to monitor whether their workers are performing activities according to work standards (e.g., sequence of activities, inventory levels, time required to complete one cycle). If not, the assumption is that there is a problem with the system (e.g., equipment, materials ...) that needs to be rectified. Having your supervisors audit other work cells would help get them in the mindset of ensuring that their own work cell is operating according to defined policies/procedures.

I think I might be careful in "saying" supervisors are "auditing" (at least formally),,, otherwise won't you get into the auditors training? At least in TS16949, unless I train all of my supervisors in our internal auditors class, I won't formally include their "audits" in my records. IMO

Teri, if you don't call the Supervisors doing the audits auditors what do you call them? If a system is set up to require periodic inspections of work cells by supervisors that are not auditors then it would seem to me that the areas would still need to be audited. That would double the work load for the company.

I was assuming I would have a frequency schedule put in place to qualify the supervisors as in-training, probationary and qualified. As the number of acceptable audits increase I would move them up the chain and reduce the amount of review they need until reaching the qualified level.

BTW, I like the attachment you provided. Looks much like I was thinking. :applause:

Teri, if you don't call the Supervisors doing the audits auditors what do you call them? If a system is set up to require periodic inspections of work cells by supervisors that are not auditors then it would seem to me that the areas would still need to be audited. That would double the work load for the company.

I was assuming I would have a frequency schedule put in place to qualify the supervisors as in-training, probationary and qualified. As the number of acceptable audits increase I would move them up the chain and reduce the amount of review they need until reaching the qualified level.

BTW, I like the attachment you provided. Looks much like I was thinking. :applause:
Yes, I was thinking the same as you,,,, qualify the supervisors to do these. For right now, and until I get a more formal schedule, only trained internal auditors are doing this. I want to work out all the kinks, then "train and qualify supervisors" to these. Glad you liked the attachment!:thanks:

We have a system in place where an individual who supports production, but does not directly work for it, performs an activity called 'job audits'. A job audit focuses solely on the job...not on the system as internal audits do. A job audit is also schedule 4 times / year (once per crew) for all positions. This job audit is performed concurrently with a safety observation.

Should the standard not be followed, this leads to one of three conclusions:

The individual simply will not follow the standard
The individual was not trained on the standard
The standard is incorrect


Root cause will impact how we resolve the situation.

Like Teri, though, these job audits are a distinctly separate activity from internal auditing.

Depending on your internal system and, in particular, your approach to internal systems and their performance measures would be the key to successful internal auditing.
At My Ford location (AS I have said in many post's) we use the FPS (Ford Production System) internal measurements of SQDCME (Safety, Quality, Delivery, Cost, Morale, Environment). search the Cove for this measure and you'll be presented with many threads, posts and visuals that, may help you gain a broader benchmark
I have witnessed many audits where supervisors take part in an audit of a colleagues area or zone within production. I'm not too keen on supporting such approaches as, it became very clear that, auditing a colleagues work area or zone becomes a very politically charged activity.
The fact that Ford are a unionised, makes the internal auditing activities very sensitive to processes and procedures that may affect Mangement/Union relations.
Wallace.