Internal Audit - Grading Scheme?

[E Wall]

Currently we hold internal audits and report results (good and bad) then take corrective action against the nonconformities and leave the (preventive action and continuous improvement) seeds we planted for process or systems management with the managers to discuss at mgmt review.
I have heard of others using a grading scheme, but do not like the idea of them being based on the number of nonconformities. Does anyone that has a grading system (not exclusively based on nonconformities) in place feel like sharing an outline of the system along with some of the pros/cons (regarding using a grading scheme)?

Grateful for a bit of help
Eileen

Eileen,

I'm not a fan of grading systems for internal audit. They seem to be too subjective in defining what result get what score and brings in too many variables. A pass/fail system works well and leaves very little room for the interpretation of scores and is simple to maintain.

Has anybody else had good results with a grading system?

ASD...

[goose]

I had to deal with a rating scheme in a former life until I could change it.

My experience was that there was more emphasis on the "score" than there was on addressing the nonconformance.

[ISO Chick]

Totally agree with what you are all saying about grading Internal Audits, management tends to get hung up on the numbers and reducing them without actually analysing exactly what the problems are and dealing with them..... bad idea

[E Wall]

Thanks gang!
I'm printing this out so if it comes up - I can show them objective comments from other professionals.

[Marc]

I've never seen a grading system. Maybe I'll have to consider addressing it in the Guide ( http://Elsmar.com/Audit/ ).

Will someone describe a grading scheme for me? I'm hearing the Cons. Any 'Pro's?

[E Wall]

Thanks Alf. Something we changed might help you...
We too had numerous delays in addressing C/PARs because when found they were addressed to the area supervisor - who might not be the best person to resolve the problem. So while combining what used to be separate CARs and PARs into CPARS we also set up a timeline for responses based on the quality impact (which must be determined by the QA Manager) and designating who the C/PAR goes to is up to the Plant and/or QA Manager (both if available).
The time lines we use are:
* Low Impact - within 4 weeks
* Moderate - within 3 weeks
* High - within 2 week
The Short term solution must be defined immediately.
The Root Cause and Long Term Action Plan must be turned in by the timeline above which is reviewed by the originator (usually an internal auditor, myself or the QA Manager).
If accepted, then the follow-up is scheduled from the datae of receipt (again using the same timeline).

Weekly open reports go to the QA Manager and copies to anyone associated with open C/PARs.

[Alf Gulford]

Eileen-
If you’re looking for ammunition, try this. I have to report major/minor/pass counts for each production supervisor each month and the results are generally inaccurate as well as skewed:

1. Everyone has a different idea about when the month ends for reporting purposes. Some of the count gets lost between the cracks.

2. Sometimes I find that I have to re-issue a non-compliance to another supervisor so the count for the previous month is (was?) wrong on two counts. The fewer N/Cs I write, the greater effect this has on their percentages.

3. A minor non-compliance for a very small issue is counted the same as a minor non-compliance for a larger issue.

4. There’s no recognition for supervisors that take quick, effective corrective action and even preventive action as a result (as opposed to those that are dragged kicking and screaming into compliance).

On the plus side…, well, I’ll have to get back to you on that one.

Alf



[This message has been edited by Alf Gulford (edited 26 June 2001).]