Re: Auditor's advice for improvement (Opportunities for Improvement) - Mandatory or n
Alluding to Sidney's comment:
I agree auditors, whether internal, second party [from customer], or third party [certification registrars], have not been consistent in the use of language or vocabulary to communicate what they have observed during the audit.
Strictly speaking, an auditor has one over-riding task:
to determine from his observation whether an organization is performing processes in a manner compliant with the auditee's written plans [which may include internal plans, external plans from customers, international Standards, or government regulations.]
Secondarily, the auditor may observe a practice or a process which seems vague or prone to error, even though no such error occurred during his "snapshot" visit. If the auditor comments at all, it might be in the form of a "heads up" to the auditee to keep an eye on the process to detect an error.
In recent years [the last 20 or so], some, not all, auditors have been treading a thin line between auditing and consulting by suggesting a "better way" to the auditee. In the case of internal and second party auditors, this is an expected and hoped for benefit of the audit and well within the parameters of such audits.
The sticking point comes when a third party auditor makes such suggestions because he may be violating trade secrets by passing on tips gleaned from other auditees. He is most likely violating the third party auditor guidelines on refraining from consulting or in any way acting as an advocate for the auditee. This is really a self-imposed rule by the third party registrars to maintain the appearance of impartiality for the audit itself. The fact of the matter is that CPA auditors have been crossing the line into consulting for as long as there have been "independent" certified public accountants. Rarely do positive consulting tips by CPAs raise eyebrows concerning impartiality. In my memory, the only scandals involving CPAs have been when they collude with clients to present a false picture of the economic health of the organization.
In my opinion, ALL auditors (internal, second, and third party) should be encouraged to offer suggestions for improvement as long as they are careful not to disclose trade secrets of other organizations in those suggestions.
The responsibility of the auditee is to acknowledge such suggestions and it is also courteous to tell the auditor whether the suggestions have been incorporated or discarded. Detailed explanation beyond the courteous notification is not required. The notification regarding OFIs does not have to be part of the formal response an auditor may be expecting regarding actual N/C items. Certainly, no third party or second party auditor should be expecting a bonus or cash reward from the auditee if the suggestion is adopted and provides benefit to the auditee.