RCBeyette said:
More than adequate!

I do understand the difference, thankfully, and what you said matches my own thoughts.
At first thought, I have to agree with my fuzzy and drooling friend, The Taz!. But, I also have this feeling that we're not getting the whole story here.
Dr. L, how far in advance do you send the questions? A day, a week, a month, longer? Too be honest, if it is just a day or a week, I would not think much improvement would be seen or enabled. Even a month is doubtful, in my opinion, however more time has been provided for the auditee to provide evidence of a plan to improve. Could you clarify what you mean by "enable improvement"?
Hi ! I shall try to answer both Taz and RCB here.
The set of questions is sent to the auditee just after sending the audit plan; that means about two weeks to a month before the audit.
To give you an idea of the type of questions - the following is one of the questions to the CEO : "Could you give examples of including environmental considerations while taking business decisions in the last six months". This can help the CEO to collect enough information before the audit. It is likely that the preparation for this question reinforces the need for including environmnetal considerations while taking business decisions. In the initial stages of the system establishment the CEO will be looking for examples. What I find is that over a period of time (i.e. after say a couple of audits) the CEO is well tuned to think environmentally while taking business decisions and he has many examples to give. This part comes out well (ie. the CEO is able to come out with many examples) when external auditors audit him on these issues during the certification or surveillence audits.
Taking another example for the Management Team member in-charge of manufacturing activity, some of the questions are: What are the key characteristics that you monitor regularly ? How do you ensure progress in areas of concern ? What is the management support that you provide to meet the targets ? This helps him to review the key characteristics that are being monitored by him, e.g. energy consumption per unit production, waste generation per unit production, KG VOC emissions per $ value added etc - to see if he covers all the issues that are relevant to the organization. If he has missed any key characteristics, now is an opportunity to include it in his monitoring programme. He can also review his own activity to check if he has been supporting his organization to meet the targets; if so is it adequate. In areas where there has been no progress or negative progress he is given an opportunity to review his procedures - does he act in a way to enable progress.
AS an auditor, this process helps me to prepare the auditee for facing the audit; during the physical audit I spend more time on collecting evidence against audit criteria; and wasting of time by the auditee (searching files, getting information from other departments etc.) is avoided.
What is enabling IMPROVEMENT: I am sure you would agree with me that the auditee behaviour is different during the audit than before/after the audit. During the audit the auditee is normally stressed. It is likely that the auditee "understands, accepts and acts" on suggestions (or identified gaps) during the interactions before or after the audit. Take the example of the first question above. If the CEO had considered environmental concerns while taking business decisions during the last six months, he would try to collect as many examples as possible - positively reinforcing his commitment. If he had not, it is likely that he starts doing it after receiving the question or plans to do it in the months to come. If he has not responded in any of the ways given, the auditor can still bring this issue in the audit report for corrective action. Since the question is already known to the auditee, there is less likelihood of arguments with the auditor at this point. This example shows how the above Question can enable the auditee (CEO)to improve his activity by including environmental concerns in his decision making process.
Coming to the comment on "examination", I would like to submit that the final examination is conducted by the external certification auditors; internal audits prepare the organization to meet the requirement of the system, including continual improvement. Of course, internal audit should meet IAF guidance on the Application of ISO/IEC Guide 66 criteria as the certification agencies will be looking for the evidence against G.5.3.20 (a,b,c,d) while auditing the organization.
I shall be glad to share more with you on specific issues on the above subject.
Best wishes,
Ramakrishnan