8.2.2 - Opinions please... Audit schedule based on importance and 'status'

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Considering this part of 8.2.2: An audit programme shall be planned, taking into consideration the status and importance of the processes and areas to be audited, as well as the results of previous audits.

We have taken this factor into accout earlier, when planning the audits, but we have now taken it a step further.... Starting from January this year we added a new field to our internal audit form: Date for next audit.

We agree on the date for the next audit based on the findings in the current one and the general status of the audited area.

Basic guidelines (Even though we are flexible):

A very good audit result: Next audit in 18 months.
A "normal" audit result (Whatever that is): Next audit in 12 months.
A poor audit result: Next audit in 6 months.
And if we find a real mess (a system breakdown): A follow-up audit within 1-3 months.

Thus, we now have a "self-generating schedule" where every completed audit generates a new one. (The external auditors loved the setup). The benefits are that it allows us to concentrate on problem areas at the same time as it serves as a bonus for the good ones.

/Claes

 

[Al Dyer]

Claes,

Sounds to me if you have developed a method to ensure that audits are scheduled based on importance. The only question I would ask is:

What criteria do you have for any corrective action to be taken when an audit leads to a "score" on your Basic Guidelines.

I can only assume that there are differing levels of corrective action required for the 4 Basic Guidelines.

Al...

 

[Jimmy Olson]

Hi Claes,

That sounds like a pretty good system and easy to maintain. The only thing I have a comment about is that it seems like there is potential that you could end up with multiple audits scheduled at the same time depending on the results. Do you have any plans on how to handle that if it does come up?

 

[Aaron Lupo]

Re: 8.2.2 - Opinions please...

Claes,

The only thing I do not see being addressed is what if things go bad between audits, do you have a way to make sure they area is audited beofre the next scheduled audit?

 

[M Greenaway]

Claes

Another burning question. We all know auditing is not an exact science (to say the least), if you have more than one auditor in an organisation how do you ensure consistency of approach.

Hope this isnt dragging the thread off topic, but my concern would be that some auditors may audit 'harder' than others, and your scheduling based on importance would have more really to do with auditor 'hardness' than a real reflection of status and importance.

I would personally like to see some grading of process importance, and some other process measures thrown in on which to base the schedule of the next audit.

Also we need to bear in mind that famous disclaimer we all get from our registrars at the bottom of their audit reports - words to the effect of 'this audit report is based on a sample, and the absence of any adverse findings in this audit report does not mean that none necessarily exist'. Goes back to my comment on not being an exact science.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

pancreas said:
---X---
What criteria do you have for any corrective action to be taken when an audit leads to a "score" on your Basic Guidelines.

I can only assume that there are differing levels of corrective action required for the 4 Basic Guidelines.

Al...

Hi Al,

Well... Any CAR's resulting from an audit are handled as before, with someone responsible for action, deadline and all that stuff.

The guidelines I mentioned handle only the time for next audit, and that is up to the audit team to decide, based on the overall result of the audit.

Richard Olson:
---X---
The only thing I have a comment about is that it seems like there is potential that you could end up with multiple audits scheduled at the same time depending on the results.

Good question Richard,

Yep, we do. We simply check the schedule before we set an audit date. (A current schedule can be found on our intranet at all times. We handle all audits in a Access application, and as soon as a new audit is scheduled, it is also forwarded to the intranet). As a matter of fact, it does happen that we have two or even more audit teams roaming the grounds, performing different audits at the same time, without any problems.

/Claes

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Re: Re: 8.2.2 - Opinions please...

Yikes You lot are fast on the buttons today... Ok, I wanted opinions.. Seems I got them

ISO GUY said:

Claes,

The only thing I do not see being addressed is what if things go bad between audits, do you have a way to make sure they area is audited beofre the next scheduled audit?

Yes, if we see signs of that, we can change the schedule... Absolutley.

M Greenaway said:
Claes

Another burning question. We all know auditing is not an exact science (to say the least), if you have more than one auditor in an organisation how do you ensure consistency of approach.

Hope this isnt dragging the thread off topic, but my concern would be that some auditors may audit 'harder' than others, and your scheduling based on importance would have more really to do with auditor 'hardness' than a real reflection of status and importance.
---X---

Yes... I would clearly consider that to be within the topic, even though I may have to go out of topic to explain our approach:

We try to "calibrate" (couldn't think of a better word) our auditors (Yes, including yours truly) in several ways. One of them is by every now and then dishing out 10 hypothetical audit findings to all auditors and asking them to comment on them:

Would you write this up?
Acc. to what std clause?

.... and then discuss the replies. That works very well, believe me.

Of course, we have everyday contact too.

M Greenaway said:

I would personally like to see some grading of process importance, and some other process measures thrown in on which to base the schedule of the next audit.

Also we need to bear in mind that famous disclaimer we all get from our registrars at the bottom of their audit reports - words to the effect of 'this audit report is based on a sample, and the absence of any adverse findings in this audit report does not mean that none necessarily exist'. Goes back to my comment on not being an exact science.

Agreed. And yes: We take that into account too.

/Claes

 

[M Greenaway]

Sounds like you have it all sewn up nicely Claes - I like the auditor calibration idea very much, its bordering on an MSA study of the audit process.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Thank's Martin,

Say: MSA Study? Something I ought to read? (Help me out here mate. I'm not a native speaker, remember? )

/Claes

 

[M Greenaway]

Sorry Claes

MSA stands for Measurement System Analysis, a collection of techniques for analysing predominantly gauging systems used on products. QS9000 published their own manual on the subject.

Your scenario reminded me of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) methodology where you compare the results from different operators (or auditors) to see if they introduce significant error.

I am sure the techniques could be extended to auditing, would make an interesting thesis for anyone doing their degree in quality.

Traceability to national standards is an interesting concept too.......