Alternative Internal Audit Methods - Seeking Enlightenment

[M Greenaway]

Well its a big IF, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions !

Seriously though, ISO9001 is not full of quality tools/techniques, its simply a management process standard, a couple of tools it does mention though are 'say what you do, do what you say' procedural control, and check that people are doing this, or audit control. In the grander scheme of things I would say that these tools have minimal real impact on quality improvement generally speaking that doesnt warrant their high profile within ISO9001.

For example SPC or control charts dont get specifically mentioned/mandated in ISO9001, we can pick and choose this control method based on what we see fit in our organisation. Why has this useful tool not been mandated, but an arguably lesser useful tool such as internal audit has been mandated ?

Also managers in most companies have 'quality' issues coming in daily from all directions that they have to react to, why do we think that our audit findings are more important than these issues ?

[Colin]

I am not sure that we think audit findings are more important than other issues. However, a good internal audit might highlight areas for improvement which would prevent other 'quality issues' occurring in the first place.

As for SPC, ISO 9001 tries to be all things to all companies and control charts would not be overly relevant to a vast number of types of organisations that now use the standard. I do agree that many audit systems don't add value. That is not the fault of audit, more the fault of the methods of audit employed and the value attached to it by the people within.

[Jennifer Kirley]

...a good internal audit might highlight areas for improvement which would prevent other 'quality issues' occurring in the first place.

Yes, I agree.

Internal auditing is still a compliance subject, based on the idea that the QMS should be managing goodness and hopefully promoting value in a self-supporting way. Internal auditing would verify that's happening, identify areas where interdendent activities could be more efficiently done, and show places where approaches can just be rethought from the beginning.

When auditing, a person can ask, "What should be the area of greatest focus? Arguably one might head for higher risk and opportunity to realize greatest value.

I've attached a short explanation of risk-based auditing approaches in this thread.

To better understand the processes, use tutle diagrams, make flow charts and process maps. This can be tough to do with virtual meetings. To help process owners understand the value of controlling their risk, use quality cost calculators in the Cove.

All of this moves away from compliance auditing, but it can bring real value because the auditor can maintain a high altitude perspective using operational details and a connect-the-dot mindset that managers may not be applying.

[AndyN]

In Reply to Parent Post by Colpart

I do agree that many audit systems don't add value. That is not the fault of audit, more the fault of the methods of audit employed and the value attached to it by the people within.

Colin:
You have hit at the heart of my passion for a major change in the business of training/qualifying/managing/performing internal audits. I find it amazing that the whole internal audit marketplace hasn't changed in any substantial way since I sat my Lead Auditor class in Swindon (U.K) in 1985! The basis of those training classes, and the work done by IRCA/RAB on auditor qualifications, hasn't changed since. Even the recent 'competency' requirements teach the same basic methods, just less by 'instruction'.

Since the whole system has been predicated on external audit behaviours, we get what you described. Lack of ownership, frustrated auditors etc. Sure some get benefits, but I'd like to be able to actually see some (tangible) improvements that management really like. My experience has been that these improvements are driven by 'relief' that issues were found internally. Culturally, everyone would rather call it 'an improvement', anyway.

Yes, the curriculum for internal audit must change. It has to de-emphasize external audit behaviours like 'opening' and 'closing' meetings (which use 15 point agendas and take 15 minutes), re-inforce the need for management input to planning, include 'audit management' as a qualification, instead of 'lead auditor' etc.

After twenty years it's time to carve a diifferent path for internal auditors so that organizations get some ($$) benefit and it's a recognized career enhancement to be one.

[M Greenaway]

I think we are all kinda agreeing, Colpart supports audits but does suggest a better way/approach, as does Andy in his comment regarding internal auditing mimicking external audits, and what little value that is - I agree with both sentiments entirely !

But maybe in order to get over the restrictions that the concept of internal auditing suggests to us we need to remove the title and concept from ISO9001, and do the things that auditing (traditionally) is trying to do some other way.

[Colin]

I don't know about the RAB criteria but the IRCA criteria for audit training insists on the use of ISO 19011 to structure audits. Whilst I support much of what is in 19011, I do not think much of it is applicable to most organisations when conducting their internal audits. It tends to suggest a very formal structure when often an informal one would work better.

[Stijloor]

In Reply to Parent Post by M Greenaway

Our friend Jim Wade had a lot of good ideas on this subject. He no longer frequents this forum however you can I am sure get in touch with him at www.bin.co.uk

Internal audit has got to be one of the most questionable quality tools in the book, particularly in regard to the ISO9001 concept of internal auditing, for so many reasons. I know a lot of hard working auditors will be choking on that comment, and a few years ago when I was primarily an 'auditor' I would also have argued the toss.

"Having been an auditor a few years ago", what do you suggest we should do with repect to ISO 9001:2000 internal audits? Can you give us a few specific suggestions?

Thank you very much.

Stijloor.

[Bev D]

Jennifer had some nice ideas in her referenced post.
Adittionally, how about 'scheduling' audits for areas that generate 'too many' non conforming parts? or mistakes/errors that have serious consequences? teh idea here woudl be that the audit team would also be part of teh corrective action team and they would be looking likely causes of errors/mistakes or things that are contributing to the nonconformances....but the goal would be to contribute to the needed corrective action.

I also like to schedule 'verification' audits for areas that have implemented corrective actions to ensure that controls and solutions are being performed and are effective (not just forced on the operators)

use the concepts of Lean (5S, continuous improvement, visual workplace) as the basis for auditing to ensure that teh preventive/continuous improvement activities are effective...