Your Internal Audit Team: Internal or Hired External? Outsourcing Internal Audits?

[Crusader]

Not sure if this would make a good poll or not but here goes:
How many of us use our own internal auditor team? and How many of us actually hire an external source to perform internal audits?
How many of us switched from internal to external and found it to be better / worse?
-jus curious...

[Sidney Vianna]

I think this is a great question. In principle, the organization's employees should be able to perform a much better assessment of the QMS than any external person/outsider. However, the reality is: due to ineffective qualification and training, poor selection, workload, intimidation, and a few other reasons, many internal audits done by the company's own employees are, many times, superficial, ineffective, confrontational, opinion-based, etc. and actually lead to a lot of internal friction. So, outsourcing of the internal audits might be a good option for some organizations.
I think Lee forgot to develop the actual poll, but I am interested in the feedback.

[bpritts]

I too am interested in the answers ... as a consultant, I do the ongoing
internal audits for several clients. I would agree with Sidney's comments
that all too often the "internal" internal audits just aren't very well done.
Further, with TS16949, the auto companies have raised the bar for
internal auditors (especially with Ford, who has tough customer specific
requirements for internal auditor qualifications.) It would be hard for most
companies to cost justify this amount of training investment.

Another benefit of the use of outside resources is additional independence,
particularly for smaller companies.

I will say that some of the better internal audits I've seen by employees
are those done by multi-plant companies, where staff from the plants
audit each other. If you are in this situation, it can work quite well.
You get the benefit of specific experience in the company, a greater degree
of independence, and a little bit of competitive juice.

In the TS16949 model, a good option is to use a wide range of employees
for the manufacturing process and product audits, and use the consultant
for system audits.

Regards,
Brad

[Howard Atkins]

I have added the options of both outsourced and "internal".
There are companies that I know that do both.
The outsourced audits do have the advantage of not being locked into "fixed conceptions" due to "joint history" and a tendency to relate more seriously as they are "external".
Another good model is to audit neighbours, my company will audit you and vice versa.
The real question is whether the management see the audit process as a benefit or a waste of time?

[Wes Bucey]

I added the poll. Howard added some good questions. Send either of us a PM if you'd like the questions altered - I wasn't sure exactly what you were aiming for.

I voted "in-house & love it" because I always found the cross-functional audit teams a great way to keep everyone focused on the concept that the entire organization must work TOGETHER!

As I wrote in my ASQ Profile:

My entire career has been centered on the concept "Quality should be involved in every aspect of a company - including executive planning, administration, marketing, purchasing, design, production, shipping, and service."

This concept holds true whether the company is a manufacturer or service company (banking, insurance, communications, transportation, construction, janitorial, etc.) The major emphasis is on pleasing or delighting the customer while maintaining or increasing organizational profitability. (In the case of non-profits, does the organization's performance delight both recipients and the contributors? If so, the organization will continue to thrive.)

I put more emphasis on "big picture" and "company culture" than on metrics. If all the members of the organization are indeed working together, metrics are a natural function of identifying areas to improve. If the organization is NOT working together, the imposition of metrics can be draconian and serve to divide the culture even more.

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Yes, the question is interesting, and the answer may be different due to how your IA's are set up. Ok, here goes:

Generally speaking, I want an internal team for internal audits. It is great for spreading knowledge and good ideas around. That said, we sometimes "trade" audits with sister companies in our group, much for the same reason: To spread knowledge and good ideas.

Our internal auditors also serve (unofficially) as a kind of quality ambassadeurs in their ordinary roles, thanks to their knowledge.

/Claes

[Crusader]

Thanks for setting up the poll. I failed to see how to set one up. (never done that) I read something somewhere in the Cove about someone who chose to out-source audits and it made me wonder if it could be the start of a growing trend.

Right now, we are strictly in-house auditing. Love is a strong description though - I would say we like/prefer it only because we save money by not out-sourcing it. Plus, the flexibility to change the schedule due to unexpected conflicts is easier if audits are done by us. The idea has crossed our minds about external auditors though.

[Wes Bucey]

I can see lots of reasons to have INTERNAL staff perform INTERNAL audit. I fail to be convinced about EXTERNAL staff performing INTERNAL audit.

I can see adding some outsiders (neighbors as part of free swap) or even some paid professionals to give each team a cross-functional character or to help in on-the-job training for the audit team, but I still maintain the team should have mostly in-house personnel.

Those of you who advocate 100% outsiders to perform INTERNAL audit should take this opportunity to help me understand your point of view.

I should warn in advance that I will be very hard to convince if you claim "employees are too busy" since it is management's chore to schedule things so there is sufficient time to do everything, even if it means increasing staffing or granting overtime pay. I will be similarly resistant to claims that employees are "incompetent" since it is management's task to provide training and opportunities to take such training to eliminate "incompetence" as an excuse.