Hi, I am new to internal audit area and am doing a course on internal audit. there is an question asking " how to tactfully report upon a non-conformance". How can I explain a non-conformance found through an internal audit, so that auditee/receipt of non-conformance didn't get upset and take it personally? Thank you.
How to Tactfully Report upon a Non-Conformance
- Thread starter andreww
- Start date
You'll need to start on the right footing by elaborating on the purpose of an audit - that it is part of a continuous improvement process and an audit helps in finding opportunities or areas in the system for improvement. If there are areas of weakness, it will also be address. It is worth mentioning that you are not auditing the auditee per se but he/she is there to assist the audit process. Thank them for their co-operation when re-assurance is needed.
When it comes to reporting, it becomes as simple as: We had found a number of opportunities ............... .
My
When it comes to reporting, it becomes as simple as: We had found a number of opportunities ............... .
My
Hello there!
Well... I don't know if there is any way to keep some people from getting defensive about anything.
But... here are some ideas:
1. Report the non-conformance based on objective evidence. It's not an opinion thing.
2. Non-conformance is not about a person; it's about the process.
Hopefully any internal audit conducted brings value to the organization.
Well... I don't know if there is any way to keep some people from getting defensive about anything.
But... here are some ideas:1. Report the non-conformance based on objective evidence. It's not an opinion thing.
2. Non-conformance is not about a person; it's about the process.
Hopefully any internal audit conducted brings value to the organization.
The standard which is audited, the documented procedures and the stated procedures are the inputs to you and the evidences sampled and the statements made by auditee to questions asked are the outputs. If they do not align, you simply state what exact non-conformance you noticed and in which sample, and what was required per the standard, the documented procedures or the stated procedures. You may also mention that such a non-conformance was noticed in one out of several samples to state that the system is in place but not practiced across. Its not on a person that you audit.
Again as other have impressed well here, its the system, not the person being audited and this has to be very clear across both auditor and auditee.
Again as other have impressed well here, its the system, not the person being audited and this has to be very clear across both auditor and auditee.
Thank you very much! I get these points below to avoid conflict between auditor and audiee when non-conformance is being addressed.
· [FONT="]Report non-conformance based on objective evidence-factual based decision making[/FONT]
· [FONT="]Mention that audit is on system/process not on person while auditee is assisting auditor to audit system/process[/FONT]
· [FONT="]Mention that the purpose of audit is not finding mistakes, and it is to find any improve opportunities and validate system/process. If there is weakness during audit, it will be addressed[/FONT]
· [FONT="]Mention that non-conformance raised was noticed on one out of several samples taken, and states that there is a system in place but not practiced across.[/FONT]
[FONT="]any comments and good suggestion please.
[/FONT]
· [FONT="]Report non-conformance based on objective evidence-factual based decision making[/FONT]
· [FONT="]Mention that audit is on system/process not on person while auditee is assisting auditor to audit system/process[/FONT]
· [FONT="]Mention that the purpose of audit is not finding mistakes, and it is to find any improve opportunities and validate system/process. If there is weakness during audit, it will be addressed[/FONT]
· [FONT="]Mention that non-conformance raised was noticed on one out of several samples taken, and states that there is a system in place but not practiced across.[/FONT]
[FONT="]any comments and good suggestion please.
[/FONT]
Colin
Quite Involved in Discussions
Andrew, some very good points raised and well summarised. I would add that you should make sure to mention good points when you see them so that the auditee doesn't just hear bad news and think carefully about raising N/C's. Only raise them if by fixing them you can add value to the process - in other words, 'if in doubt, leave it out'.
T
tamale
I think the poeple at Toyota have it right when they say «never accuse an employee but ask yourself, what is it in my system that is permitting these non-conformities»
Well it's somewhere around that line anyway... To be simple, it's your attitude that really makes a difference!
Tamale
Well it's somewhere around that line anyway... To be simple, it's your attitude that really makes a difference!
Tamale
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree - for an audit, state the section that the non-conformance applies, and the objective evidence found. List facts, not opinion. There is no reason to state blame or cause in an audit finding.
Now, when it comes to the corrective action, that is a whole other issue.
Bob, this leads in perfectly with a short story I was going to share from yesterday.
While reviewing some calibration forms, I noticed two of them did not have calibration procedures listed on them. I called in the two individuals that completed the records. Simply, I told them to fix it.
So, if an internal auditor had found that, I would expect she/he to write up something like:
They could then cite our section on Good Documentation Practices that spaces are not to be left blank. Ok, so exactly to your point, the report is turned in, and that part is done.
Now... the auditee would move to act upon it.****
So obviously I had a small, short, informal, but effective
training session with the two. Problem #2-they should have never submitted those forms without it being complete. But one of the gentlemen correctly stated "Yea, I messed up. But we have a problem in our process, that there was not a procedure entered when it was put into the system". Problem #1-why was the procedure not entered when the instrument was entered.
In the end, our process was working, because the reviewer caught these omissions prior to the completion of the activities. But, we still need to address the deficiencies to address making sure that does not happen anymore (addressing #1 and #2).
Bottom Line for the internal audit: We would much, much rather have the internal auditor find these non-conformances than an external auditor/ customer.
Similar threads
