I'm curious about whether, when writing audit reports (internal/external) you write 'positive' comments (ie, comment on commendable things or things done well) or only note when things are wrong or not quite good enough.

Another discussion thread on audit got me thinking about this.

I'm curious about whether, when writing audit reports (internal/external) you write 'positive' comments (ie, comment on commendable things or things done well) or only note when things are wrong or not quite good enough.

Another discussion thread on audit got me thinking about this.

When I see something noteworthy, I do. I give them a "Best Practice" or "Excellent Practice" as our registrar likes to call. Sometimes I identify things as a "Gold Star." But, I don't do it on every audit, only when it is deserved or it becomes cheap flattery. I also teach internal audits to look for it as well.

It is amazing how much of a motivator for further improvements it is.

Absolutely! It helps to make the audit a little more positive. Also, in some cases it's good to point out things that are done well in one area that can be used in other areas to improve them as well.

From the users point, I'll say I expect it. Most of our mind had been conditioned for the 'SWOT' analysis and all I need is to fill in the opportunities and thread part of the puzzle and arising out of that analysis, appropriate actions can be taken.

Over here, I do see it in most reports.

Always,

In fact, I start my closing meeting with positive comments. It helps to encourage people in their committment and also in their openness rather than trying to hide facts. They also become more receptive to what follows such as observations, non-conformances and opportunities for improvements.

I voted for ALWAYS.

As Parag said, even I open the closing meetings with Strengths / Positives and echo whatever he said.

I feel if we are looking for continuous improvements, highlighting of positives is equally important in addition to negatives.

Hi

My audit reports always carry the positive findings; in my opinion it is required to show that a particular audit issue had been visited and found to be in order. Otherwise, someone reading the report, say a few years (or even months) after the audit will not know the condition with respect to that particular point at the time of the audit. I am not sure if such a finding needs to be followed by praising the auditee; in my opinion the auditor brings out the truth and (s)he does not need to be a judge. In the same vein, the auditor has no right to "blame" or "reprimand" the auditee for non-conformance or non-compliance. I think that the auditee-auditor relationship is sensitive; any deviation from the code of conduct may be construed as a corrupt practice.

With best regards,

Ramakrishnan

Always here. I also do this, as it lets the auditees know that they're doing a good job and which areas are stronger than others so they know where to improve ("points of concern" as our audit report calls them)....

A former manager of mine once taught me that it's good to point out the strengths or positive issues before mentioning the ones that need improvement because it helps the recipient accept the "bad news" a little easier. ;) Think of "a teaspoon of sugar helps the medicine go down". :lol:

........... Think of "a teaspoon of sugar helps the medicine go down".

Nice quote :)

Even if an audit was mostly bad, I will find positive things to say. And, like others, I put the first in the report/meeting. I want people to realize we look for the good as well as the not so good. We are not the nonconformance police, but partners to help improve the way we do things.

I think it depends on your point of view of the purpose of an audit!

If you are doing internal audits, then shouldn't the whole audit report be a confirmation of the good process controls etc in place?! A validation, if you like, that managements' system is, indeed, functioning effectively. Only when non-conformances are found will the message in the report be less than 'positive'.

If you are doing an external audit, since a lot of folks have a very negative perception of them, feel anxious etc., anything done to 'lift' the situation is good. The problem as I see it, is that in cases I've witnessed, external auditors have made borderline 'dumb' comments to add a 'feel good' factor to the audit.

Imagine hearing at the closing meeting (something that should be the basis of the summary report) that an organization has a 'world-class' internal audit program! What does that mean? Does management have to improve upon that? They've arrived! Actually, the internal audit program was substantially less than world class, but why let truth get in the way of saying nice things.

I need to get on with writing a book on "Internal Audits Done Right"...:notme:

My reports (internally) always identify positive things found besides the negatives or noncompliances. The external auditors (3rd party) usually place in their reports both the positive and negative (NC). The 2nd party's reports that I have seen don't really report on the positive and are more focused on the negative. Usually, during the closing meetings the auditors talk about the positives.

I think it is more of a Personal (auditor's way) on how they feel would be the most important, cost value added.

I selected "always..."

I'm so glad to see everyone said "always" because I do too. I think it can be very important, as I have been known to be pretty hard on people in my audits.

But I agree that I do not always have something nice to say. When that is the case, I summarize and explain nonconformances in an "Opportunities" section, and offer ideas to improve.

In the audit I sent yesterday, I had 6 "Strengths" comments and no "Opportunities" listed. That doesn't mean everything was perfect, I just didn't see anything to point out as an opportunity.

I'm curious about whether, when writing audit reports (internal/external) you write 'positive' comments (ie, comment on commendable things or things done well) or only note when things are wrong or not quite good enough.

Another discussion thread on audit got me thinking about this.

This is an interesting topic, Jane. Thanks for bringing it up.

I guess your question may be wrapped around some auditing philosophy. One side would be: the report is a report of audit findings; deficiencies (and near deficiencies) and nothing more. You're the umpire-calling it like you see it. You don't tell the batter he is good; you just call balls and strikes.

The other side may tend to reflect how people view auditors and auditing. If people view them as the bad guys, the police, they will probably not appreciate anything they say in the first place.

But if people view auditors as the professionals they are, concerned about improving the process, then I believe they are more open to their observations. Positive comments given in audits have been passed down/ around to people in the departments, and are well received (even though there were findings). I realize that auditors see many organizations and many processes; so for them to comment on a particular positive is rewarding and well received.

After one of my girls volleyball games that I coached, I was talking to the referee, who called a good game (except that we lost:lol:). She commented on how good the game was (it was a close one) and noted how much the girls had improved over the last few weeks. I enjoyed hearing that, and from her perspective, I forget that probably the main reason she is a referee is because she enjoys volleyball, and enjoys watching the sport. Too, she is in the best spot to see things like that.

This is an interesting topic, Jane. Thanks for bringing it up.

I guess your question may be wrapped around some auditing philosophy. One side would be: the report is a report of audit findings; deficiencies (and near deficiencies) and nothing more. You're the umpire-calling it like you see it. You don't tell the batter he is good; you just call balls and strikes.

The other side may tend to reflect how people view auditors and auditing. If people view them as the bad guys, the police, they will probably not appreciate anything they say in the first place.

But if people view auditors as the professionals they are, concerned about improving the process, then I believe they are more open to their observations. Positive comments given in audits have been passed down/ around to people in the departments, and are well received (even though there were findings). I realize that auditors see many organizations and many processes; so for them to comment on a particular positive is rewarding and well received.

After one of my girls volleyball games that I coached, I was talking to the referee, who called a good game (except that we lost:lol:). She commented on how good the game was (it was a close one) and noted how much the girls had improved over the last few weeks. I enjoyed hearing that, and from her perspective, I forget that probably the main reason she is a referee is because she enjoys volleyball, and enjoys watching the sport. Too, she is in the best spot to see things like that.

Brad - what a great post! Very nicely put!

I fear that too many auditors like to talk like your ref. but behave like the umpire.

The game (process) results speak for themselves - it was a close score and, if we'd seen the previous scores, there would be an improving trend. I'm guessing the ref hardly had to intervene during the game.......so her lack of recordable 'non-conformances' to the game rules, plus the result (sorry your team lost) can be summarized in her 'good game' comments. Exactly what good auditing is about......

I realize this thread is about audit reports, but many have commented on the closing meetings also. I'd like to point out something that I've noticed with a lot of auditors trying to add the "spoonful of sugar." Many will start with a positive comment, then say "but" then the negative. This method of delivery unintentionally wipes away the positive feel and focuses on the negative.

Example: "Your design review process is good. Reviews consider key customer requirements, previous similar designs, and all of the required inputs. But the reviews don't involve team members from all affected processes as required in 7.3.4 of the standard..."

Instead of focusing on the negative at the end, I encourage them to focus on the benefits of meeting the requirements.

"Your design review process is good. Reviews consider key customer requirements, previous similar designs, and all of the required inputs. And they'll be even better if they also include team members from all of the affected processes, such as manufacturing and purchasing. Not only will reviews meet the requirements of 7.3.4, but some of the manufacturability problems experienced in the past may be eliminated."

Thanks for the feedback people - interesting results.

As Andy and others comment, I think it depends on your point of view of the purpose of an audit!

I've read many, many audit reports from a whole plethora of auditors: they span a wide range from 'I'm just here to report facts' all the way up to 'I'm a partner to help improvement'. Hence my poll and question.

Perhaps the title would be better expressed as 'do you highlight strengths?' I do tend to think that if auditors note or highlight strengths where things are working very well, or something is highly effective/better than many other companies visited (external) or other areas/teams/departments (internal), this can be very helpful feedback to get from an audit report. Almost every client I've worked with is very interested to know how they compare with others.

And possibly I've seen too many of the reports that simply regurgitate the Standard (it's not just lazy 'quality manual writers' who do this!) along the lines of 'Company XYZ reviews its quality management system at planned intervals and meets requirements'...

I did deliberately ask about writing though, as opposed to saying for a couple of reasons. One is that often at a closing meeting (and most particularly one for certification) the client personnel are so focussed on the final outcome (did we get it? did we get it?) that they really are unable to listen to much else, whereas the report is the written record that remains, and is read - often even reread! - afterwards. The other is that I've sometimes noticed that an auditor may be almost glowing in verbal praise... but omit all such from the actual report! As Andy says, they may like to talk like the ref, but they write like an umpire. I wonder why. I suspect there is a bias toward looking for what isn't working so well, and constantly remind myself to also look for what is.

Like your technique, howste - better than the but one.

I believe that a good audit report should fairly reflect the audit results. If there are positive issues to report (and in the vast majority of audits, there are), they should be documented in writing.

I believe also, that audit results should help disseminate best practices. Earlier this year, the US Air Force experienced a US$1.4 Billion loss when a B-2 bomber crashed in Guam. Many of the public reports comment on the fact that some of the maintenance crews dealing with that type of aircraft knew about the excessive moisture concern, but the knowledge wasn't disseminated through all the interested parties. The crash probably could have been avoided if knowledge of a technique to evaporate the moisture had been disseminated throughout the B-2 program, said Maj. Gen. Floyd L. Carpenter, who headed an accident investigation board.

Concerning the technique mentioned by Howste:
Instead of focusing on the negative at the end, I encourage them to focus on the benefits of meeting the requirements.I like it, but, is it clear to the people in the receiving end that they have to correct something?:tg: I like it, and it would be even better when it is clear to the people in the receiving end that they have to correct something.

:2cents:
...I guess, it’s only fair for the auditee to know their “weak points” as well as their “strong points”…

…after all, both "points" benefits the auditee’ organization…

When I present training courses on auditing, I like to point out something in the definition for Audit:

A systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining audit evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which the audit criteria are fulfilled - not to which they are not fulfilled.

In other words, look for things which are right, not wrong. So, if we see objective evidence of anything during an audit we should record it - including the positives.

As has already been suggested, I like to start with the positives - the only problem being that as soon as I say 'however' ..... they know what is coming next :D

....A systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining audit evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which the audit criteria are fulfilled - not to which they are not fulfilled.

Hi Colin,

Well said :)

You reminded me of one of my professors who would always tell us "always revisit the definitions in case of doubt, and surely your doubts will be cleared"

When I present training courses on auditing, I like to point out something in the definition for Audit:

A systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining audit evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which the audit criteria are fulfilled - not to which they are not fulfilled.

In other words, look for things which are right, not wrong. So, if we see objective evidence of anything during an audit we should record it - including the positives.

As has already been suggested, I like to start with the positives - the only problem being that as soon as I say 'however' ..... they know what is coming next :D


Colin - it is very useful to revisit this. Thanks!

It's important to understand that the primary purpose of the audit is to verify the system and it's controls are in place and functioning the way they were intended - for management. Furthermore, as Sidney points out, the results should be something management 'recognize' needs working on.

Which also means, IMHO, not reporting results in terms of 'ISO' (which most management haven't read) and/or not telling them 'Your people don't follow procedure" and similar.

What it does mean is reporting that the process is being followed, so the results of the process can be trusted (and improvements identified). Or it could be that good results are being achieved but the process (as defined) isn't being followed - this makes correction easy to identify.

Furthermore, if the process isn't performing, the task of the (internal) auditor is to identify which part(s) of the process is (or isn't) being followed - once again, to make corrective action more readily pin pointed.

To do this takes much better planning on the part of audit management - the audits have to be run on a 'pull' system! It takes a far different method of planning/scheduling audits than having a yearly calendar, worryng about 'auditing all the clauses' and having the auditors use canned (ISO based) checklists.

Without effective audit planning in place, the audit report - even written with lauditory statements - will not be much use......

....
As has already been suggested, I like to start with the positives - the only problem being that as soon as I say 'however' ..... they know what is coming next :D

Agreed. Colin, I find this as a challenge in many areas of my life.:yes:

One of the tricks they teach in Toastmasters when giving evaluations is the sandwich approach. List first the positives, then list the opportunities for improvement, and follow up with positives again.

There's no substitute for a good auditor. Among the many other challenges is developing the knack for writing good reports.

I have it written in to my audit procedure, that we will both verbalise the strengths during the audit and at the closing meeting, AND have a specific section called 'Strengths' in the audit report (assuming there are some).

I believe a strength is a type of audit finding, so it must be stated and reported with the weaknesses. And I believe, as we advise the auditee or auditee management to take a holistic approach to the need for preventice action, we must also advise that any strengths are considered for their application in other areas.

Concerning the technique mentioned by Howste:
I like it, but, is it clear to the people in the receiving end that they have to correct something?:tg: I like it, and it would be even better when it is clear to the people in the receiving end that they have to correct something.
:lmao: Agreed. It must be clear that there is a nonconformity that needs to be addressed.

A systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining audit evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which the audit criteria are fulfilled - not to which they are not fulfilled.ISO 19011:2004, Section 3.1 definition of "audit". Nice, Colin. As a receiver of audit reports, I fully expect the report to reflect where my system exceeds the requirements of the standard and where it fails to meet the requirements of the standard. Both are noteworthy, don't you think? I am paying ($$$$) for service here. When the auditor points out, in writing, both the excellent and sub-standard it provides me with some added value without the auditor "consulting". Third party auditors have seen it all. Hopefully, they will use this knowledge to point out where we are excelling and not just were we are non-conforming.

ISO 19011:2004, Section 3.1 definition of "audit". Nice, Colin. As a receiver of audit reports, I fully expect the report to reflect where my system exceeds the requirements of the standard and where it fails to meet the requirements of the standard. Both are noteworthy, don't you think? I am paying ($$$$) for service here. When the auditor points out, in writing, both the excellent and sub-standard it provides me with some added value without the auditor "consulting". Third party auditors have seen it all. Hopefully, they will use this knowledge to point out where we are excelling and not just were we are non-conforming.

Yes I do agree. If its good - tell 'em - if its not good - tell 'em. That's the job as far as I am concerned.

I try to write positive comments along with the not-so-positive and at times it's a challenge without stretching the truth.

What I try not to do is write positive stuff about minimal expectations or requirements having been met. Saying that you did a good job by doing the minimum seems to be a waste of effort and really offers little.

Just my:2cents:

I try to write positive comments along with the not-so-positive and at times it's a challenge without stretching the truth.

What I try not to do is write positive stuff about minimal expectations or requirements having been met. Saying that you did a good job by doing the minimum seems to be a waste of effort and really offers little.

Just my:2cents:


Yes, we don't want to cheapen it by celebrating the basic..."Congratulations! ...You showed up for work today!..."

But, a well deserved pat on the back for work that deserves it, is appreciated, and an excellent motivator!

:topic:You reminded me of one of my professors who would always tell us "always revisit the definitions in case of doubt, and surely your doubts will be cleared"I wish your professor could crack the code of "preventive action". You can revisit the definition until the cows come home, but it won't solve the decade old imbroglio. The definition is very straight forward. The application on the other hand.....:frust:

:topic:I wish your professor could crack the code of "prevention action". You can revisit the definition until the cows come home, but it won't solve the decade old imbroglio. The definition is very straight forward. The application on the other hand.....:frust:

Yep............
It's amazing how that simple requirement can be so misunderstood and misapplied.........Winds up looking like Rube Goldberg was involved somehow:lol:

:drool:...so, are we going to have a discussion again about “prevention action”? (btw, isn’t "preventive"?)…




(of course, I'm kidding...)

:topic:I wish your professor could crack the code of "preventive action". You can revisit the definition until the cows come home, but it won't solve the decade old imbroglio. The definition is very straight forward. The application on the other hand.....:frust:

Well said Sidney :)

May be there are some exclusions permitted ;)

you definitely write known strength in the process you are conducting an audit on along with the weaknesses. Positive comments are not needed though since there may not be any positive comments to write or known strengths in the process you are auditing.

you definitely write known strength in the process you are conducting an audit on along with the weaknesses. Positive comments are not needed though since there may not be any positive comments to write or known strengths in the process you are auditing.

Although 'positive comments' can be subjective, what's the point in doing the audit if you can't report that the process is effective?

Isn't that a positive comment? Indeed, that's why you are supposed to be doing the audit, to confirm for management that the process is being controlled and it's effective - pretty positive comments don't you think?

I do give positive comments but at the same time I believe that showing flaws in a process and opening up CAPA's would bring a process to excellence.
During a follow up on that audit, you can record positive comments in the Internal Audit Report.
You are also doing Internal Audit to improve individual depts. By pointing out the weaknesses you are actually strengthening the process because those individuals are going to infact work on their weaknesses.

By pointing out the weaknesses you are actually strengthening the process because those individuals are going to infact work on their weaknesses. I hope so. :cfingers:

I tell it like; it is good if good bad if bad. Why not put a gold star on there report card and by them a new bike. They are big boys and girls now.
Seriously people common sense.
:whip:

All, allow me to input just a bit from the laboratory and inspection accreditation world.....

We face the same issues in many cases, and arrive at some of the same solutions.....including in this case, whether to praise folks or only document compliance.....

Each AB, like each 9K Registrar and each internal auditor, is somewhat different.....

I can't speak for other ABs and other assessors.....but I do praise when I believe it is reasonable to do so.....not just to offset the negative impression, but also to try to add value, and more specifically to illustrate best practices within the organization, so the concepts can be migrated to the rest of the organization for continuous improvement.....

I do readily admit and applaude that many lab AB assessors (from multiple ABs) include this or a similar practice in their reports, and I certainly encourage that.....

Hope this helps.

Each AB, like each 9K Registrar and each internal auditor, is somewhat different.....

Yes, indeed they are. Among all the reports I've seen from external certifiers/registrars, they span the full range, from those who stick almost rigidly to the 'complies/does not comply' model all the way up to the other end, where they really attempt to add value by highlighting strengths if they are there.


I do praise when I believe it is reasonable to do so.....not just to offset the negative impression, but also to try to add value, and more specifically to illustrate best practices within the organization, so the concepts can be migrated to the rest of the organization for continuous improvement.....

Really well said, and an important point I think. In larger organisations, it can be useful to be told when something is done better/particularly well in one area, as you say. In smaller organisations, they really like feedback on where they're doing well in comparison to other organisations, and they appreciate the 'positive' feedback as well as 'negative'. So often, the smaller and medium ones have little opportunity to get this kind of feedback - they can't ask their competitors! but a good auditor brings wide experience of other organisations with them, often from other organisations in the same or similar fields. It's one area I notice frequently that they are most interested in knowing, and get value out of receiving such information via audit.

On a few occasions, my clients have switched certifiers, and thus had the opportunity to see how different ones report from audits. On each occasion when a client moved away from a certifier who solely used the 'complies/does not comply' model and to one who aimed to add value and thus also included areas of strength/positive comments, the client commented that the report was 'better' or 'more useful' or some such similar comment.

And yes, I know 'positive' is a subjective term - but it was a nice short phrase to use in a thread title! I take it for granted that we're adults in an adult world, so we're not talking about handing out lollies just for a feelgood factor. Though if it's chocolate.....count me in.:D

i think as an auditor u should note the positive comments as ur job is to get information. anything worth noting should b noted

And yes, I know 'positive' is a subjective term - but it was a nice short phrase to use in a thread title!

How is 'positive' a subjective term and 'negative' not a subjective term? As auditors, we make observations about the process being audited based on the information / data collected during the audit. So we collect objective information. What if there are no 'negatives' and the process is 'positive' from your audit sample? What do we say then? Positives in the audit close out meeting and the audit report are both motivational and provide an opportunity for management to consider whether the good things found during the audit can also be applied to other processes.

I am a strong advocate for including positve and value-added comments in the audit report and close-out meeting. This is particularly important if there has been improvement from your last assessment. It is important to engage and inspire people, and what is better than postive and public recongnition of the organization's processes and results?

Also, let's remember a little sumpin, sumpin. Most of us QA Managers have probably been instrumental in selecting your company as our registrar and/or you as our auditor. If we deserve some positive feedback, there is no better way to pay us back than to deliver that positive feedback in front of our executive staff at a closing meeting, when you really have their attention.

This self-serving message has been brought to you by the Under-paid and Under-appreciated Quality Assurance Managers Global Association.

This self-serving message has been brought to you by the Under-paid and Under-appreciated Quality Assurance Managers Global Association.:lmao:...That association must have a huge membership.

You should consider having the noteworthy, praising comments already typed in and provided to the auditors in a memory stick. It makes their report prep time shorter. It would be a win-win....:lol:

<snip>This self-serving message has been brought to you by the Under-paid and Under-appreciated Quality Assurance Managers Global Association.

Why not start a QAMGA support group here at The Cove....:tg:

I mentioned in another post that if it was not for the hard working, committed Quality _______ (fill in your title), more than half of the certified/registered organizations would lose their certificate.....no kidding. :yes:

Stijloor.

You should consider having the noteworthy, praising comments already typed in and provided to the auditors in a memory stick. It makes their report prep time shorter. It would be a win-win....:lol:This will be entered into my Continual Improvement database before the day is out.;)

Also, let's remember a little sumpin, sumpin. Most of us QA Managers have probably been instrumental in selecting your company as our registrar and/or you as our auditor. If we deserve some positive feedback, there is no better way to pay us back than to deliver that positive feedback in front of our executive staff at a closing meeting, when you really have their attention.

This self-serving message has been brought to you by the Under-paid and Under-appreciated Quality Assurance Managers Global Association.

Trahimur omnes studio laudis (we are all attracted by the desire for praise) :lmao:

:lmao:...That association must have a huge membership.

You should consider having the noteworthy, praising comments already typed in and provided to the auditors in a memory stick. It makes their report prep time shorter. It would be a win-win....:lol:

Maybe we can start a database of such comments here on the Cove. Then when we run out of positive comments during an audit we can just log in and select some that are appropriate. Cut, paste, and viola!

Also, let's remember a little sumpin, sumpin. Most of us QA Managers have probably been instrumental in selecting your company as our registrar and/or you as our auditor. If we deserve some positive feedback, there is no better way to pay us back than to deliver that positive feedback in front of our executive staff at a closing meeting, when you really have their attention.

This self-serving message has been brought to you by the Under-paid and Under-appreciated Quality Assurance Managers Global Association.

Absolutely. When something is done particularly well, it deserves public praise. If it is earned, it deserves to be paid.

My interpretation of a QMS audit objective is to determine the extent to which a QMS meets the customer requirements. As a tool, an audit needs to add value and one way of doing this is to look for areas where an organisation is excelling, highlight this with an intention of maintaining and/or improving the status quo.

Every organisation has got something good it does - your job as an auditor is to find it and use this to motivate an organisation in areas noted as weak or in need of improvement.

I do this too.
Giving the truely positive comment can let us know what is the stronger area they are, which can help us know it better and focus their advantage to help other area.,,

I will do this when the positive adds to the scope of the audit or clarifies an objective. I stay away from general comments such as "Very Clean" (except in clean room applications), good housekeeping or "very knowledgeable" (unless I can tie that to the requirement being audited). I believe that people can sense when you’re being polite.
:2cents:

I answered "Always" - the the carrot & stick thing, don't ya know?

I'm encouraged to see that according to this poll, the vast majority of auditors look for things that they can comment favourably upon (always or when impressed), not just for failures and nonconformities. :applause:

I'm encouraged to see that according to this poll, the vast majority of auditors look for things that they can comment favourably upon (always or when impressed), not just for failures and nonconformities. :applause:

Because of how the poll was phrased, I voted in the middle - "at times - only when favorable impressed."

I am ALWAYS looking, and will make positive comments verbally, but in the report I will only document things that are noteworthy. I won't stretch to give hollow praise.

I won't stretch to give hollow praise.

I witnessed a CB audit a few years ago, where at the 'wash up' meeting on the Wednesday of a week long audit, the Lead told the client they had a 'world-class audit program'............!!!!:mg::confused::rolleyes::bonk:

Very dangerous, don't you think?

Because of how the poll was phrased, I voted in the middle - "at times - only when favorable impressed."

I am ALWAYS looking, and will make positive comments verbally, but in the report I will only document things that are noteworthy. I won't stretch to give hollow praise.

Well said, Helmut. Yes, I could have phrased it more clearly, perhaps better to have said 'do you look for things done well & comment on those?' Sigh. One of those things you look back at & think, hmm, could have done that better.

Hollow praise? Nope. Waste of time & I don't do it either.

I voted for ALWAYS thinking about a first party audit.
While auditing we collect evidences of compliance or not-compliance with audit criteria.
This means that we list all the good and bad evidences in our internal audit reports. Moreover we spend some words about awareness of interviewed personnel. We do not praise but we do positive comments.

I should vote NEVER thinking about a second party audit. These audit reports are usually addressed to our internal depts. Dedicated reports are sent to the vendors highlighting only the required corrective actions (if any).

Always. I've been on the receiving end of those negative-only reports and it's not a good feeling.

Interesting point. I hadn't really distinguished between audits done by different parties, & I'm not sure that I would. The question was really to anyone doing an audit, 1st, 2nd or 3rd.

I know that I & clients appreciate an audit report (eg, from a 3rd party audit) if it's apparently fair and balanced (ie, gives credit where it's due, as well as observing nonconformity/weakness), rather than if it solely focusses on what's wrong. Tthe thinking may go something like 'hmm, the auditor's seen that we do this or this well, or have improved that, so over there when they say we need to improve, we should take notice of that & consider what they say carefully".

I'm not of course suggesting anyone ignores audit reports that are solely negative, but even-handed reporting (assuming always it is justified) is usually better received.

the Lead told the client they had a 'world-class audit program'............!!!!:mg::confused::rolleyes::bonk:

Very dangerous, don't you think?

Dunno. Was it 'world class'?

Interesting point. I hadn't really distinguished between audits done by different parties, & I'm not sure that I would. The question was really to anyone doing an audit, 1st, 2nd or 3rd.

I know that I & clients appreciate an audit report (eg, from a 3rd party audit) if it's apparently fair and balanced (ie, gives credit where it's due, as well as observing nonconformity/weakness), rather than if it solely focusses on what's wrong. Tthe thinking may go something like 'hmm, the auditor's seen that we do this or this well, or have improved that, so over there when they say we need to improve, we should take notice of that & consider what they say carefully".

I'm not of course suggesting anyone ignores audit reports that are solely negative, but even-handed reporting (assuming always it is justified) is usually better received.

Yes, I would like not to distinguish audit done by different party too.
An audit is based on a sample: we can’t audit all the activities made by a vendor. If we report that some activities were excellent what would happen when we will find out that the same activities not belonging to the audit sample were wrong and cause product non conformance? I would bet that our vendor will use our audit report to demonstrate us how they were excellent and how we are wrong.
Relationship with vendor are not always based on cooperation. For this reason we prefer to have different style of audit reporting. We have a long way before cooperating and co-creating with vendors but this is another topic.

Usually. As I understand the role of the internal auditor, we are to be fair and unbiased as we look for compliance. That means calling it like I see it, good, bad or otherwise. However, even the things that need improvement should be addressed in kind manner. Making people feel like dirt about their shortcomings won't advance the Quality cause.:2cents:

Piero, I quite see your point and it's a good one. (No doubt a reason why all the 3rd party audit reports I see have lots of fine print in them :tg: )
Of course it's your system and you'll know best what works and is suitable for your unique situation.

Hi Jane,

You made a good point with your inquire. When I provide auditor training courses I remind the trainees to write the positive aspects they observe. This way they will encourage their auditees to keep doing a good job, but on the other hand the report will contain also additional evidence that the audit scope was fulfilled even if there are no observations.

Warm greetings from Mexico!
Alberto Rios
ASQ CQA, CQE, CBA,
CQMgr, RAB QMSA

I witnessed a CB audit a few years ago, where at the 'wash up' meeting on the Wednesday of a week long audit, the Lead told the client they had a 'world-class audit program'............!!!!:mg::confused::rolleyes::bonk:

Very dangerous, don't you think?

I was told by my previous CB that our audit report was better than their own !! :tg:

I was told by my previous CB that our audit report was better than their own !! :tg:

Hope you charged them for your service. ;)