Here I am again. Stepped in to help out one of my internal auditors and stepped right into a mess. Brief scenario: last year's audit of this process yielded a whopping major NC for several issues under different requirements. Most of the issues were addressed and fixed, but not followed up and maintained. Fast forward to early this year: the supervisor for this process/department left the company and part of his responsibilities were handed over to another manager. This "new" manager had no idea of the shape of things in this department. He (like everyone else here) has his plate full and is trying to cover all the bases. I started this audit last week to help out my internal auditor who was behind schedule, and found to my dismay, that this manager was clearly not up-to-snuff on everything in this newly acquired department.

I don't want to slap this guy with several NCs when clearly these things should have been done by his predecessor months ago. (side note: this manager is pretty good about doing things right and is very willing to comply with the standards in his other "old" department/process, which he still has responsibility for.)

In your opinion, what would be my best approach to this? I'm at the point of preparing the audit summary report, and could use some suggestions on how best to proceed. (I guess I want to give him the benefit of the doubt on one hand and on the other I want him to know that this is serious and can't be repeated in the next audit.)

Thanks! :thanx:

Oh, boy.

Gidget, as uncomfortable as it would be, have you sat down and talked to this manager? The worst thing to do, IMO, would be to blindside them with a surprise bad audit report. At least when the report comes out they might have time to decide how to approach each issue, which would make things easier when the report comes out. If the manager is not that familiar with the standard (and possibly even if they are) it might be wise to have a copy of the standard with you, so that there are no grey areas.

The main thing is to make sure the problems are attacked, and not the manager. They likely cannot run for cover and run the department at the same time.

Hope this helps.

Oh, boy.

Gidget, as uncomfortable as it would be, have you sat down and talked to this manager? The worst thing to do, IMO, would be to blindside them with a surprise bad audit report. At least when the report comes out they might have time to decide how to approach each issue, which would make things easier when the report comes out. If the manager is not that familiar with the standard (and possibly even if they are) it might be wise to have a copy of the standard with you, so that there are no grey areas.

The main thing is to make sure the problems are attacked, and not the manager. They likely cannot run for cover and run the department at the same time.

Hope this helps.

Well, I suppose the good thing about this is that while we (he was my escort) were reviewing records, he saw for himself the true state of affairs and realized that he has to do something about it. In fact, as I was leaving his office, he told me that he was glad I did the audit and that he saw everything for himself so now he knows where his new dept. stands and has an idea of how much work needs to be done to get things set aright.

We talked some about the situation, but I think maybe another discussion would be good. I believe he would be receptive and anxious for guidance.

Thanks for your help, Craig, and yes, it DOES help.
:thanks:

Gidget,

I am in full agreement with Craig H on this one. The worst possible thing, in my opinion (and I stress this with the people that report to me) is not to "blind-side" me. It doesn't look good on the Manager or the employees, and could burn the bridges down.

Sitting down and talking with the Manager is the best advice that can be given.

Handle this situation with tact and diplomacy. Be careful not to place the manager on the defensive. :caution:

Provide solutions and recommendations and some training (without calling it training) to help the manager along with the issues.

You will get better responses and develop the rapport needed to accomplish the Company's goals and objectives.

I don't want to slap this guy with several NCs when clearly these things should have been done by his predecessor months ago. A cliche' that applies here. You are not auditing the people, but the SYSTEM. From what you describe, you have several problems: Not only the "corrective actions" from the previous year audit were not effectively implemented, but your organization allows for a new manager to operate being oblivious to problems in the processes he is responsible for.
My suggestion is for a general re-thinking about the apparent misunderstanding that the problem lies with the people. The problem lies with the SYSTEM.

I would sit down and have an honest discussion but how you are going to handle it and why - then I would write it - but I would write it that the new manager was not appropriately trained, and/or provided the resourcese necessary to do his/her job.

Or - On internal audits I have sometimes decided to do the sidebar, provide the training, and tell them I will be back in about 60 days - hold off on making any decisions until then.

A cliche' that applies here. You are not auditing the people, but the SYSTEM. From what you describe, you have several problems: Not only the "corrective actions" from the previous year audit were effectively implemented, but your organization allows for a new manager to operate being oblivious to problems in the processes he is responsible for.
My suggestion is for a general re-thinking about the apparent misunderstanding that the problem lies with the people. The problem lies with the SYSTEM.

And to expand upon Sidney's thought, IMO it is Management that is responsible for the SYSTEM and any CA needs to address the Management contribution to root cause: poor training (already mentioned), resource issues (replacement vs. covering), CA validation (short term vs. longer term), etc. Did you increase your frequency of IA for this area as a result of the Major NC (which sounded broadly systemic...)? I definitely would double hit an area that had such a failure in the next year, if I didn't break into this year's schedule to check on it sooner:notme: . That's just what I do, "status and importance" means that to me, that's what's required.;)

If the manager is receptive and he is lacking in support from upper management, recording all the Non-conformances might be a good way to show the company where the departments' weak areas are. Depending on the upper management, this could be either a good thing, or a really bad one for the manager involved. :notme:

I guess I don't understand why the current incumbent is so out of the loop on his area.

This seems a perfect time to ask the Standard Questions:

How do you know what to do?
How do you know you are doing it correctly?
How do you know the stuff you use for input is OK to use?
How does the next step after yours in the process know the stuff he receives from you is OK?Depending on the answers, the guy may be untrained and unprepared OR just in over his head. In any regard, you have to either defer the audit because the process is not ready or report the nonconforming activity.

Remember, it is the Process, not the human, being audited; if the human is omitting activity, something is wrong in the process that gave the human such opportunity.

Now, I'm just an internal auditor, but in my little world when you've been doing an audit then you write the audit report, and then you go over the report with - at least - the person responsible for the area. The basis of my thinking is that an audit is a situation where dialogue should be the outcoming result. Without the dialogue there can/will be a difficulty in reaching the mutual agreement on what the good and the bad things revealed during the audit are. And, as an added bonus, there is also the possibility of guiding a "rookie" employee to a good, efficient and easy solution.

I guess I don't understand why the current incumbent is so out of the loop on his area.

This seems a perfect time to ask the Standard Questions:

How do you know what to do?
How do you know you are doing it correctly?
How do you know the stuff you use for input is OK to use?
How does the next step after yours in the process know the stuff he receives from you is OK?Depending on the answers, the guy may be untrained and unprepared OR just in over his head. In any regard, you have to either defer the audit because the process is not ready or report the nonconforming activity.

Remember, it is the Process, not the human, being audited; if the human is omitting activity, something is wrong in the process that gave the human such opportunity.

I couldn't agree more. As I was reading the posts I was waiting to see if any brought up these issues. As a "new manager" of the department one of the things he shuld have done was sit down and look at the processes to see what state they were in. The N/C's need to be documented or future audits you complete in this area will hold no merit. As Sidney stated you are auditing the system not the person.

It sounds as though there was a breakdown in communications when the new manager took over. Perhaps reviewing the procedures for assuming new responsibilites would be in order, as well as procedures for communication. Did the new manager have access to previous audits? Any reason to think that he/she needed to review them beyond just familiarization? In a situation where new responsibilities are piled on someone who already has a full load, a review in depth will most likely only take place if red flags are raised and waved furiously.

Gail

Well, first I want to thank everyone for their input. :thanks: I took the advice offered and met with the manager this morning. He was very willing to listen and acknowledged that there is much to be done. :agree: We discussed the NCs that were found (he saw them for himself at the same time I found them last week), and even tossed around some options for streamlining the documentation of the process.

I came away from the meeting very encouraged that this manager will do whatever it takes to get things into shape and keep them in shape. :whip: And, I think he came away with a better understanding of where his newly acquired process is and where it needs to be, in terms of compliance. I stressed to him that his people aren't the subjects of the audit, rather the system/process is the subject, and he was well aware of this, yet at the same time acknowledged that his people need additional training. :agree1:

Whew! Thanks again to all the Covers who offered suggestions. What a wonderful resource we have here at The Cove! :applause:

Well, first I want to thank everyone for their input. :thanks: I took the advice offered and met with the manager this morning. He was very willing to listen and acknowledged that there is much to be done. :agree: We discussed the NCs that were found (he saw them for himself at the same time I found them last week), and even tossed around some options for streamlining the documentation of the process.

I came away from the meeting very encouraged that this manager will do whatever it takes to get things into shape and keep them in shape. :whip: And, I think he came away with a better understanding of where his newly acquired process is and where it needs to be, in terms of compliance. I stressed to him that his people aren't the subjects of the audit, rather the system/process is the subject, and he was well aware of this, yet at the same time acknowledged that his people need additional training. :agree1:

Whew! Thanks again to all the Covers who offered suggestions. What a wonderful resource we have here at The Cove! :applause:


Gidget,

I am glad that everyone could help, and congratulations on the accomplishment. :applause: