Much of this is philosophical as much as realistic. You're in a small company so some people wear many hats. None the less, if you hire a person to clean the factory floor, you might want to think twice about having that person suggest 'improvements' to the design engineering folks. They may really believe that person is not qualified to make suggestions about their systems.
"...HR employee is auditing the sytem not the job done..." So - they only audit the system and not what people are doing? Please explain. I maintain internal audits are about verifying people are following the systems (procedures) applicable to their job. When you say one is not auditing "...the job done..." are you saying that in the sense of the 'quality' of how the job was done? If so, well - that's open for discussion.
"...Of course they can suggest improvements...." No problem. Let me know when you go into the hospital for surgery. I'll offer your doctor some 'suggestions for improvements' on operating procedures (systems) s/he uses on you. OK with you?
These things are done and I admit sometimes a suggestion is appropriate. However, I have seen this go to extremes where an auditor is making suggestions about a system that they have no qualifications in. The auditor calls them suggestions and the auditee calls them opinions. And the fight is on!
They can audit the systems (Are you doing what you say you are doing? Show me.) but are they qualified to comment on the system design (suggestions)?
OK - let's take an example of an engineer auditing HR. Typically an engineer has some background with HR folks. How? They may provide HR with requirements for a hire. What I am getting at here is the engineer probably has interfaced with HR from time to time which gives them an understanding of some aspects of some of HR's systems. If I was in HR, however, I might not agree with an engineer who wanted to tell me how to improve how I select suppliers. On the other hand the engineer may have some 'experience' having had to spec equipment from multiple suppliers.
A college degree can sometimes help one understand another's systems. My degree is in biology, however I had some qualifications in metology upon graduation by virtue of all the measurement and test equipment I used during chemistry class and many other classes. I may not be a metrologist, and I wouldn't want to tell a metrologist how to run his/her business, but I sure would feel qualified to audit a lab and I may also have some valid suggestions for improvement.
All this said, if your system works for you that's fine. I will never (um, well, maybe not NEVER, but you know what I mean) tell someone their system is garbage when it works for them. That does not mean it will work for every company. You obviously have not experienced
Internal Auditor Hell! Be happy!!!
You don't want to go there, I promise you. 'Observations' (now most often called Opportunities for Improvement) can lead to real problems. No - they don't always as your case evidences. Again I say, be happy for you are blessed! I'm pretty radical about this because I've seen
Internal Auditor Hell.
I've seen many systems like yours where no problems come up. I do not hesitate to say that the
majority of internal audit systems
do run smoothly as yours does. But when they go bad, they seriously affect a whole company negatively. I preach methodologies I believe reduce or eliminate problems.
"...And please do not think that I'm flaming....". Well, I may be a "...litlle bit elitist..." (or a lot elitist) but your position is welcome and not taken as a 'flame'. I would rather someone speak out (and most do here - that's why I keep the forums up) than to just go away. I learn from alturnate views - we all do. Heck, Alan and I have a standing arguement - on everything. He says something and I tell him he's wrong. I say something - he tells me I'm wrong.
Welcome to the club! Register and stop by daily for 'all the action'! Always open and ready to exchange ideas! We're all personalities here! (Just ask barb...)