Value Added External Audits - Do External Audits add value to your system?

There has been considerable discussion in other threads about the benefits (or otherwise) of audits. With some Covers claiming to offer value added audits and others stating that it either doesn't exist or has no place in the registration process.

I would like people to give their opinion (preferably with examples) on the idea of value added audits.

I voted external audits provided value added.
Heading down the road to TS16949 registration I welcomed all the input I could get. So I used 2 consultants over the time span, and a pre-assessment.
These all added value to our system implementation and achieving certification. Every audit Ihave had over the years wether 3rd party or 2nd party such as GM, Ford, Chrysler, DOD always resulted in something to improve the system and help customer satisfaction. I have been doing this for 37 years and have been audited by good and bad auditors. But, no bad ones for a long time. The professionalism has improved greatly, probably due to more educational and experience requirements. My 2 cents.

I voted yes, they have added value to the organization. There have been opportunities for improvement or actual non-conformances written against us that did not have value, only more paperwork, but the majority of my experiences have been value added. I believe another set of eyes can only help.

I voted that I felt my external audits have added value to a client's operations, because my clients have told me this, with their pocketbooks and their feet. Over the last 13+ years of being a Registrar Auditor, with a change in Registrar about a year ago, I've had clients that have been with me for over 10 yrs, who have repeatedly indicated that they specifically look to work with me and look forward to their audits, because of my thoroughness and value added observations (not consulting) The clients that came over to my current Registrar, made it clear that the reason was they wanted to continue the professional relationship with me.

I am neither an easy nor unreasonable auditor (the clients' words). Gratefully, I have had clients thank me for my time and efforts and have told me that I have helped make their business better, even though they are paying for it and, in my mind, I'm just trying to deliver the service that they expect (and then some). I am extremely careful to watch what OFI's I am suggesting, so that I am not consulting nor offering up the competitions' secrets. Although I'm certain there are some horror stories out there (as with any profession), the 3rd party auditors I've had the pleasure to work with, conduct themselves similarly.

Within this context, I always consider the clients' requests, as they ultimately determine the level of their customer satisfaction with my Registrar's (and my) provided service. That said, I must confess I was amazed at Carl's comments, in another thread, that he wanted no value-added actions (non-consulting) whatsoever and a strictly "by the book" audit. Before my comment starts off another p***ing match, I want to make clear that I have no problem with this, although it would seem counterproductive in my (and I think most 3rd party auditors') eyes. In all my years of auditing, with all different company sizes', well-known, as well as, "mom and pop" outfits, I have NEVER heard of any client not wanting value-added remarks (Honest to God, Cross my heart and hope to die, stick a needle in my eye). Carl is the first. Again, I don't have a problem with Carl's statement, if that's what he wants out of his audit. My only concern would be whether or not he has made sure the auditor, that he works with, understands his expectation. If Carl has, then that's his prerogative.

I believe some of the problem in other related threads, revolves around peoples' personal opinion of what constitutes "consulting" or "value-added". And, yes, even if there are Tech Guideline documents setting the tone for these descriptors, there is obviously still enough gray area left open to interpretation, judging from all the discussion. My worth (hopefully, without any hint of consulting)

I voted no, but I was not comfortable with the polling questions - they did not seem clear and cohesive. First of all, it only generally refers to "an external audit". External audit of what kind? 2nd party? 3rd party? or consulting oriented? I may have answered differently for each one.

It is also confusing as to the perspective of the target of the poll. The first choice seems to target the auditee, whereas the second targets the auditor. I also do not know what "...is a non-starter" means.

It might have been clearer if, for example, the poll related to 3rd party audits where the target is the auditee (the company being audited). Then the question might have been: What is your experience with value-adding 3rd party audits?, with the following choices:
- Very Good. They offered a value-adding service that helped my organization
- Fair. The value was limited.
- Poor. I expected value adding assistance but did not receive it.
- I did not expect, nor want value-adding service - simply confirmation of compliance or not.

However, if I paid a consulting service to externally audit my system, I would expect a whole lot of value adding going on.

I voted no/non starter for the same reasons as Rob Nix.

Well said Rob.

Carl-

Two points of view

Rob, you may be right in your comments about the poll not being clear. I will try to explain the intent.

Rob Nix said:

I voted no, but I was not comfortable with the polling questions - they did not seem clear and cohesive. First of all, it only generally refers to "an external audit". External audit of what kind? 2nd party? 3rd party? or consulting oriented? I may have answered differently for each one.

Click to expand...

I was referring to 3rd party audits. if people have examples of 2nd party or consulting audits either being value adding or not - then that all adds to the debate.

Rob Nix said:

It is also confusing as to the perspective of the target of the poll. The first choice seems to target the auditee, whereas the second targets the auditor.

Click to expand...

This was to allow those of us who carry out 3rd party audits to have the opportunity of saying whether we feel we go beyond ISO and into the value add (while navigating carefully around the consulting iceberg)

Rob Nix said:

I also do not know what "...is a non-starter" means.

Click to expand...

In other threads people have stated that "value add" is something they do not want to see cross the threshold dressed as a 3rd party audit. In other words - leave it to the consultants.

Rob Nix said:

It might have been clearer if, for example, the poll related to 3rd party audits where the target is the auditee (the company being audited). Then the question might have been: What is your experience with value-adding 3rd party audits?, with the following choices:
- Very Good. They offered a value-adding service that helped my organization
- Fair. The value was limited.
- Poor. I expected value adding assistance but did not receive it.
- I did not expect, nor want value-adding service - simply confirmation of compliance or not.

Click to expand...

Perhaps when this poll has run its course (albeit with somewhat dodgy poll response options) someone will try this alternative approach.

Rob Nix said:

However, if I paid a consulting service to externally audit my system, I would expect a whole lot of value adding going on.

Click to expand...

And if you got some of it for free with your ISO registration would that interest you?

Can someone draw the line for me between “value added” auditing and consulting? I’m guessing that if the suggestions made could cause a conflict of interest next audit, you’ve crossed the line into consulting. Is that about accurate?

I'll hire ya!

jcbodie said:

...my external audits have added value to a client's operations, because my clients have told me this, with their pocketbooks and their feet. Over the last 13+ years of being a Registrar Auditor, with a change in Registrar about a year ago, I've had clients that have been with me for over 10 yrs, who have repeatedly indicated that they specifically look to work with me and look forward to their audits, because of my thoroughness and value added observations (not consulting) ...

Click to expand...

Right on!

I hope I'm not in the minority here, but I care little about auditing for compliance. That path leads to "concrete parachutes" and "buying a plaque for the wall". Any halfways decent mature quality system will be pretty close ot compliant.

I want what you provide. A peek at the outside world. Access to new ideas.

Call it consulting, call it consauditing...call it your pappy. It's what makes the audit process worthwhile for me.

I do notice that this skill is "auditor specific". Some know how to help me see a better way, others are just looking for rev numbers and cal stickers.

I think trade secrets are a red herring. Even before the internet, there really weren't any secrets that provided any competitive advantage for any length of time. At least not in my industry.

Paul Simpson said:

And if you got some of it for free with your ISO registration would that interest you?

Click to expand...

I guess a lot depends on the knowledge and experience (related to the standards) of the people within the organization. IMHO, I know enough about quality systems, picked up over the last 30 years, to set up an effective QMS; so that all I want from a registrar is to buy a certificate (with the major proviso that a key customer requires it). If that means enduring a few hours of questions and paying a few dollars, so be it.

I understand Caster's thought about getting an outsider's take, "thinking outside the box", but I simply prefer to get that by different means, e.g. trade shows, seminars, conferences, books, etc.

No offense to the fine auditors out there (no offence to the English registrars), but after going through hundreds of audits (on both sides of the fence), I've become numb to the accretionary suggestions on how to better format your CAR form, or put up a board in the shop for measureables, or setting up a suggestion system.

I'm sure there are many companies that are still unfamiliar with ISO and its relatives, and the ideas they espouse, that would welcome having a single organization (i.e. registrar) that could help them improve their systems AND get them ISO registered, rather than hire both a consultant AND a registrar. But I believe that fewer companies will fit that description as time goes on, and then what are you going to do?

It's a thin line you registrar folks walk, and I don't envy you. I couldn't do 3rd party audits because I wouldn't be able to resist the urge to tell them specifically what would work for them, and then create for them on the spot.

I'm rambling now, so I'll stop.....