Internal Audit Reports - Is it wise to list specific employee names

[VickiC - 2006]

I am interested in others' opinions as to whether or not it is wise to list specific employee names in internal audit reports, CARs, and PARs. I am in a discussion with another employee on this subject and I am trying to consider all thoughts/opinions. This other feels it is okay to do this they feel it is objective evidence and they only intend to write a person's name when there is not a finding against them. I have always felt that these published documents should never reflect specific names, but instead, be available within the audit's records elsewhere, if needed as detailed evidence. Audit reports can generate a lot of emotion, both good and bad, and I guess I tend to think it is wise to remain consistent.

I am very interested in others' opinions. Thanks.

 

[jmp4429]

Interesting question. My audit reports always include a list of people interviewed/observed, but never “so and so said this.”

I am also careful that when someone alerts me to a potential nonconformance, I follow the audit trail back to ‘find it myself’ to try to keep people out of trouble.

 

[Manatee]

I am totally agree with you. We never post names of our employees in the report, but we can tell a name personally to a department manager in a case of need.

 

[ralphsulser]

We have always included names in audits to list the people contacted for each area audited. Could be manager, team leader, operator. This helps verify audit content and results. If I find obvious nonconformances that have been previously closed as corrected, I will document the name of the employee and attach evidence. This then provides a means to get at root cause corrective actions.

 

[Manatee]

Interesting question. My audit reports always include a list of people interviewed/observed, but never “so and so said this.”

I am also careful that when someone alerts me to a potential nonconformance, I follow the audit trail back to ‘find it myself’ to try to keep people out of trouble.

Pesonally me, I don't see a problem to write "The employee of the department #1 refers to this and this"

 

[SteelMaiden]

I ask for the auditors to list who they talked to on their "checklists" but never include names in the formal audit report. If someone asks who, and I feel that they are trying to improve the area, I'll put them in contact. If the querry comes from a supervisor or manager that is obviously looking for someone to blame, I may not. Nobody has figured out that the information would be available on the checklists, so it works well to protect the innocent, and the not so innocent. If there is a nonconformance, I will usually contact the person that made the original statement that lead to the finding myself, that way I can get a feel for what direction we should be moving in and can help management make the appropriate decisions.

 

[little__cee]

Numbers

We have employee numbers listed on our report cover sheet. There is a section marked "Employees contacted during audit" and their employee numbers are listed in that space.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

I ask for the auditors to list who they talked to on their "checklists" but never include names in the formal audit report. If someone asks who, and I feel that they are trying to improve the area, I'll put them in contact. If the querry comes from a supervisor or manager that is obviously looking for someone to blame, I may not. Nobody has figured out that the information would be available on the checklists, so it works well to protect the innocent, and the not so innocent. If there is a nonconformance, I will usually contact the person that made the original statement that lead to the finding myself, that way I can get a feel for what direction we should be moving in and can help management make the appropriate decisions.

Nice approach. I do the same on my registrar audits. Names interviewed and issues noted in the audit notes, but not in the report. The report focuses on systemic issues.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Pesonally me, I don't see a problem to write "The employee of the department #1 refers to this and this"

seems like a lot of extra writing with little value...

 

[AndyN]

Here I go again..........

I am interested in others' opinions as to whether or not it is wise to list specific employee names in internal audit reports, CARs, and PARs. I am in a discussion with another employee on this subject and I am trying to consider all thoughts/opinions. This other feels it is okay to do this they feel it is objective evidence and they only intend to write a person's name when there is not a finding against them. I have always felt that these published documents should never reflect specific names, but instead, be available within the audit's records elsewhere, if needed as detailed evidence. Audit reports can generate a lot of emotion, both good and bad, and I guess I tend to think it is wise to remain consistent.

I am very interested in others' opinions. Thanks.

It appears to me that you've got bigger fish to fry here, than simply whether to report a person's name. Sure, 'other' auditors may use all kinds of methods and you can too. What's mildly disturbing is you post that this is a matter for discussion and that audit reports can generate a lot of emotion.

If you have a culture that goes 'after people' once audit reports a published, then you have to ask why? Is it the way you run the audit program or is it the culture of the business/organization??

Is there something that could be done with the audit program which might help management/supervision (who I'm guessing get 'emotional') better understand the role of the internal auditor, so their reports become more acceptable?

Let us know what kind of audit program you run! How often you audit, what your findings are reporting to management, who audits who etc.

As House MD says, "What's the differential diagnostic here, people..........?"

Andy