Internal Audit Team - Small or Large Pool?

I’m finding that most of my internal auditors (about 20) are stepping down either because they aren’t interested, are too busy, or can’t get the time approved by their supervisors to conduct an audit. As a result, I think I’m going to get to train new auditors!

I think my boss feels we don’t have enough auditors, since it’s always so hard to find someone whose schedule matches available times to do the audit. I think he’d like to increase the team to about 30 people. Honestly, I’d much prefer to hand-pick a cross-functional team of about 8 people based on personality, perceptiveness, and schedule flexibility.

For one thing, with 20 auditors, most of them only conduct 1 or 2 audits per year, if that. As a result, I have to go along for every audit, since they are so unsure of what to do. I feel like a smaller, more involved team would be preferable. I already have about 4 people in mind that I’d love to have on the team. I just need to convince my boss to try it with a small pool of people.

Do you have a small or large auditor pool, and how do you feel it works out for you?

There is no "best option" here ... it's a tradeoff of many factors ... a choice you must make. Fewer auditors means more opportunity to audit, more auditors means less workload for each.

The real problem may be more about how your organization views the audit process. If objectives for the auditing process are defined by management, and resources allocated appropriately, then people should be able to take time to do audits. I'd recommend that performance appraisals include looking at how a member of the audit pool performs in this role (availability/willingness, competency/value added).

There should also be a compensatory process. Those who take on the role of auditor should be compensated for it, either through a small bonus or through time off. Some of my clients have also used the role of auditor as a consideration for promotions, since an individual who performs adequately in the role indicates a willingness to go beyond their normal job descriptions, and has also been exposed to many of the organization's processes ... a more systemic view of the business.

These decisions should be made by top management (e.g., through the management review process), just as they would if they were considering hiring/appointing a group of financial auditors, safety auditors, etc.

jmp4429 said:

I’m finding that most of my internal auditors (about 20) are stepping down either because they aren’t interested, are too busy, or can’t get the time approved by their supervisors to conduct an audit. As a result, I think I’m going to get to train new auditors!

I think my boss feels we don’t have enough auditors, since it’s always so hard to find someone whose schedule matches available times to do the audit. I think he’d like to increase the team to about 30 people. Honestly, I’d much prefer to hand-pick a cross-functional team of about 8 people based on personality, perceptiveness, and schedule flexibility.

For one thing, with 20 auditors, most of them only conduct 1 or 2 audits per year, if that. As a result, I have to go along for every audit, since they are so unsure of what to do. I feel like a smaller, more involved team would be preferable. I already have about 4 people in mind that I’d love to have on the team. I just need to convince my boss to try it with a small pool of people.

Do you have a small or large auditor pool, and how do you feel it works out for you?

Click to expand...

You do 40 odd audits a year????? WHY what does it achieve? Do your people think you are the Quality Police or what? We try and establish a system whereby the onus for process and quality control etc is on the individual the same as it is in Safety. They review their processes and therfore Audits are not required as often and have more effect when they are conducted. (IMHO)

We have just put our audit plan out for the next Financial Year and it involves 12 Audits minimum. Anyway, we will have a total of four auditors trained up within the next 2 months it is written into their job statements that they are secondary auditors and audits take precedent and are planned well in advance. We pay them a supplement and offer training. We do the same with our Safety Representatives.
We have unscheduled audits arising from CARs etc but these will still be done by the lead auditor.

Greg B said:

You do 40 odd audits a year?????

Click to expand...

No, more like 20. Our auditors travel in pairs.

We audit 14 separate processes, and this year for example, we have 5 process owners who requested we come back later in the year to do a compliance/process audit after they have made major changes to they way they do things.

Most of the availability issue is that about half of our auditors are line operators or line support. Each area has "floaters" who are meant to fill in if someone needs to do something else, but the reality is that there aren't enough floaters to cover the vacations, sick days, and blow-offs as it is.

My company (heavily regulated) of ~3000 people has a dedicated audit staff of 12 permanent auditors who do ~40 audits a year. Many audits are supplemented with technical specialists from the line who work under the supervision of the Lead Auditor. The 2 to 3 week assignment to the audit department is seen as a development opportunity (and probably a nice break from regular work). There is no additional compensation. This mix works well for us, creating consistency while preventing complacency.

When I was at Newport Corp., my internal audit team at Corporate included 3 VPs and 3 senior managers.....

The best way to get the right auditors and get the most effective audits is to have Executive Management as some portion of the team.....the rest can and perhaps should be specialists.

Hershal

It is an interesting topic to deliberate on. I am a consultant and also do audits for independent certification agencies. Let me share with you, the learned people on this forum, my experience in this matter.

I believe that an internal auditor should be a willing and committed person, having knowledge of the standard, its concepts and principles, importance of internal audits and how to remain attached to the activity and not to the persons. Finding such people is not an easy job.

Under these requirements, one can not create a large team of internal auditors. I also do not find any justification of creating a large team. More internal auditors create a crowd of unwilling, noncommited and having only a superficial knowledge of their job and how to do it.

internal audits are planned after due consideration of the importance of a particular process, observations during previous audit (both internal and external), any feedback from internal/external sources (including complaints), any change in the process or documentation etc. If internal audits are properly planned then the workload of audits will not be much and a small team can do the justice to their jobs. It should not be the intenion of doing internal audits just to show to the management and external auditors that a requirement has been met.

So, my experience tells me that the process of internal audit should be properly planned and implemented with emphasis on effective audits and not on their numbers, with a small team of good auditors.

My company previous management did see the problems with a pool of auditors from various cross-functional groups. Most of them were busy with their work and not able to spend much time on auditing. Last August, we implemented 4 full-time dedicated auditors and saw a great improvement in auditing results. In the second cycle of audit, the auditors were able to zone in to further improve the auditing results. Unfortunately, with the recent change of management, the auditors were back to the cross-functional team.