Auditor Involvement in CA

D

D.Scott

Did the auditor actually quote a non-compliance, or did he just suggest the corrective action (which is another no-no)?
This was brought up on another thread but I thought it would make an excellent thread in its own right.

Why is it a "no-no" for an internal auditor to be involved in the corrective action?

I'm not advocating the auditor be responsible for fixing the problem, but who is better suited to help when a department needs it? The auditor has an opinion of what they "should have seen", and probably has experience in what "other areas of the company are doing". There is no "consulting" rule for internal auditors that I am aware of. For "value for your buck", the involvement of the auditor could mean less time spent in trying to figure out "what the heck do they want" and "would this even be appropriate". This translates to fewer dollars spent and which company won't take that?

Another way to look at it - once the audit is over and the non-conformance is written, the internal auditor goes back to work as whatever the auditor normally does. A simple assignment to a CA team would place them right back in it anyway. Why play games? Use the best resources you have to get the job done.

I hope I have thrown the cat far enough into the pigeons.

Dave
 

SteelMaiden

Super Moderator
Trusted Information Resource
I like the way you think. We encourage assignees to involve internal auditors in their investigations and in corrective actions to assist and provide information as to the requirements of the standard. They can use the internal auditor that performed the audit, or any of the others. We are trying to make our systems better, not find screw ups. I always talk to the auditors when I investigate nonconformances or implement corrective actions. It makes for a good relationship, everyone feels that their input is valued and it ensures that follow-up will go off without any misunderstandings. I ain't proud, I will listen to any suggestions. I suprise myself with what I learn that way.;)
 
S

Sam

Dave, I agree with your thinking and have used auditors as a part of the problem solving team.
The only comment that I have is that it must be accomplished in the team process, such as 8D, and you need a really effective facilitator.
I may catch some flack on this , but most auditors are defect oriented and have a hard time accepting a concensus opinion on what they have determined as a nonconformance.
 
D

db

I like it...to an extent

I agree that internal auditors should have some involvement. After all, they are the ones who brought the nc to light, and they probably would be the best to determine it any proposed solutions also meet the requirements.

My fear is that over involvement would end up making the ca the "auditor's" thing. It is still imperative that management be the leader of the ca. But managers should be afforded to have the best team members available. Which may involve the participation of the auditor.
 
Why is it a "no-no" for an internal auditor to be involved in the corrective action?
Ok.. Let's for arguments sake assume that you as an auditor suggest a cure for something you found during an audit.

Then assume it's implemented and for some reason blows up in your face. That would make things a bit awkward when the time comes for the next audit, don't you think?

Yes, I know... in reality many auditors hint on what they think should be done, but I hesitate here. The real experts are the people who run the process in question... not me. I think I'll (*note: when auditing*) stick to finding out what could be improved.

/Claes
 
R

Ric

Well, here I go again!! I just have this fetish for quotes! (now there's a line for someone to jump on!!:biglaugh: )

Keeping the discussion limited to Internal Audits--registrar audits aren't the subject--Note 14 at Para 5.3.3. of ISO 10011-1 states "If requested, the auditor may also make recommedations to the auditee for improvements to the quality system. Recommendations are not binding on the auditee. It is up to the auditee to determine the extent, the way, and the means of actions to improve the quality system."

There would seem to be a balancing act of input but without totally relying on the auditor as a the be-all, end-all of solving the problem.
 
R

Ric

Well, here I go again!! I just have this fetish for quotes! (now there's a line for someone to jump on!!:biglaugh: )

Keeping the discussion limited to Internal Audits--registrar audits aren't the subject--Note 14 at Para 5.3.3. of ISO 10011-1 states "If requested, the auditor may also make recommedations to the auditee for improvements to the quality system. Recommendations are not binding on the auditee. It is up to the auditee to determine the extent, the way, and the means of actions to improve the quality system."

There would seem to be a balancing act of input but without totally relying on the auditor as a the be-all, end-all of solving the problem.
 
D

db

Auditor participation

I agree Ric,

One thing I preach to my internal auditor students is that if the auditee does not want to take your advice, then sleep well at night! Even if the auditor is part of the ca team, he/she should not expect the team to do everything the auditor expects. And unless the ca is not sufficient, never demand specific action!
 
A

Aaron Lupo

When you find a n/c during an IA, the auditor should give a recommendation on how to fix the problem. While they may not be an expert in the area where they found the n/c they may have seen a similar problem in a different area of the company and how it was fixed/corrected. There alos may be times when the department manager is at a loss on how to fix the problem (due to the fact they are too close to it), and the auditors suggestions will get the dept. Mgrs thoughts flowing. What auditees also need to remember is that they are suggestions on how to fix the problem, ultimatle it is up to the Manager on what path needs to be taken.
 
J

Jim Biz

Dave - Been there after many discussions and meetings with the internal auditors after training sessions.

Actually put in practice on the internal audit report a section titled "Recomended actions" (completed by the internal auditor) and used as subject matter for diacussion and training during the exit meeting with the internal auditee. Directly below that section we used a title line stating Corrective Action plan which was to be developed by the auditee - following as many of the Recomemended actions as they felt could in reality be put in place.
 
Top Bottom