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)