I've done a reasonably thorough search but can't find any discussion about what is reported at Management Review, specifically about Internal Audits. Lots on forms, procedures etc. but not what Internal Audit results are reported. If I'm not looking hard enough, could someone point me in the correct thread(s) direction.........?

Or;

Would you like to contribute your organization's approaches to this? What have you people been doing? What reactions do you get to them?

Thanks!

Okay, it's Monday and the first day in a while with no travel or meetings...hence my apparent confusion. What do you mean by audit results? Results are results. How indepth you wish to go with this is up to you and your management group...after all, only that group knows (hopefully) what will benefit the organization.

To give you an idea of what I discussed when I was the Management Representative...pre-July 16, 2007....we had a formal agenda that outlined our internal audit discussions:

List of current auditors and status (trainee/team/lead)
List of potential auditors
Schedule for training
Internal audit dates and schedule (as appropriate)
Internal audit results

Summary - number of findings, highlights, lowlights, etc...basically a quick read-through of the report
Nonconformance Reports - details and recipients
Opportunities for Improvement - details and recipients

Future audit date(s)


I hope that helps.

Would you like to contribute your organization's approaches to this? What have you people been doing? What reactions do you get to them?
Thanks!



• The February audit resulted in a:
o 100% rating for the overall Purchasing Process.
o 80% rating for Purchasing Information (Supplier Evaluation / Monitoring)
The 20% deficiency is a result of a new supplier monitoring process, which is partially implemented / has incomplete records.
o 90% rating for Verification of Purchased Product
The 10% deficiency is a result of our documentation not matching the actual process. Minor discrepancies were discovered in each “Receiving” area.
o 100% rating for Nonconforming Product Controls related to Verification of Purchased Product.

Plus, the status data from the Internal Audit Scoring spreadsheet that I have shared with everyone.
You mean, data/stuff like this??

I don't tally nonconformances, OFI's, etc. That data in my org means nothing - that type of data would be mis-interpreted and not benefit anyone.

In last year's MR, using Crusader's template, I compiled the number of NCs, MNCs, and OFIs for each process and did a comparison from 2005 to 2006 to show improvements or deficiencies, then put this info into graphs for the visually stimulated :tg: so everyone could see at a glance whether his/her areas had improved or slipped a little.

I hope this helps. :)

I did a few powerpoint slides broken down like so:

Internal Audits
-dates and overview
-summary of CAPA's
Customer Audits
-Dates and overview
-any resulting CAPA's
Notified Body Audit
-dates and overview
-summary of CAPA's
What to expect in the coming year and areas we need to focus on.

One other measurement you can use is a comparison of internal audit results with those of 2nd and 3rd party auditors. If your team does not find nonconformance in processes that external auditors are finding you have a problem with your internal audit process that Top Management will need to act on during the review.

I'm over to QC now from QA, but 1 metric I've seen reported is the timeliness of closing internal audit nonconformances. I could never convince the current organization to add this - of course if our external auditor had looked at it closely, we' probably have received a major. It was an integral part of reports at a prior employer.

One other measurement you can use is a comparison of internal audit results with those of 2nd and 3rd party auditors. If your team does not find nonconformance in processes that external auditors are finding you have a problem with your internal audit process that Top Management will need to act on during the review.

Not necessarily! Some findings from external auditors are pure fiction and, for those who are good at their work, it all depends on their sample, what issues were present (in the business) at the time of the audits etc. It's not a one-for-one situation. I wouldn't go all 'Chicken Little' if an external auditor found something my internal auditor didn't........:notme:

My interest is that I've seen a lot of things reported, from going through each audit NC (:rolleyes:) to a simple numeric tally of clauses. Nothing to address what management might find useful, though........

I'll revisit what Crusader (and you, Gidget) did (if I can find the post.......;))

Thanks

I used to report the number of findings per clause and the number of findings per process. But as these began to level off with the maturity of our system, we focused on a more subjective discussion regarding the severity of the findings. With time and maturity, we discovered that the findings weren't as severe - this was supported by several external audits with no findings and a handful of Opportunities for Improvement issued.

However in the past year or two, I had discovered a slipping in our daily routine management and this was reflected in our audit findings - this was communicated to management. I had planned to get back to tallying the findings per clause and process this year's annual review (the quarterly management review wasn't the appropriate venue)...but I'm not the Management Representative there anymore.

AndyN

True that some findings from 2nd party auditors are just to justify their jobs but still if you have a good CAPA system your response will highlight that the audit nonconformities issued by this type of auditor is not valid and really should not be part of the comparison.

Use of 2nd and 3rd party audit results compared to internal results is a tool that can be used to determine the effectiveness of the system. Heck, you have to report the results of internal and external audit per Clause 5.6.2 of ISO 9001:2000 so why not use this information to the best advantage of the organization.


RCBeyette

You are correct that in most organizations over time they become complacent and internal audit finings of nonconformity will go up until such time as management’s attentions again becomes focused on QMS. I have also seen that when this type of attention slip by management starts it also results in one or more minor audit findings and generally a higher number of opportunities for improvements being issued by 3rd party auditors during surveillance audits.

My interest is that I've seen a lot of things reported, from going through each audit NC (:rolleyes:) to a simple numeric tally of clauses. Nothing to address what management might find useful, though........

I'll revisit what Crusader (and you, Gidget) did (if I can find the post.......;))

Thanks

Thanks! Mine is here:
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=17701

My interest is that I've seen a lot of things reported, from going through each audit NC (:rolleyes:) to a simple numeric tally of clauses. Nothing to address what management might find useful, though........

I'll revisit what Crusader (and you, Gidget) did (if I can find the post.......;))

Thanks

I never posted mine here, but if you're interested, please PM me and I can send it to you via email. :)

My interest is that I've seen a lot of things reported, from going through each audit NC (:rolleyes:) to a simple numeric tally of clauses. Nothing to address what management might find useful, though........

I'll revisit what Crusader (and you, Gidget) did (if I can find the post.......;))

Thanks

If the information being presented to management is not useful should they not be telling the person providing the information what they would find useful/helpful???

Some useful information may be how much exposure/risk there is to the business as a result of the current findings. Or potential improvements to the system/business.