K
We are a small engineering consultancy, less than 100 staff.
We were recently audited by a contractor on behalf of a major international mining company, (annual survielance audit).
The audit report includes some observations. We were advised by the auditor at the time of the audit, that while we did not have to address a observation if we did not wish to do so, they may regard it as a non-conformance next time around (next year.)
The observation was: "No documented evidence that all significant incidents are investigated using an approved investigation methodology."
I replied to the auditing company saying that according to our definiition of a significient incident, we did not have any significient incidents in the last 12 months and that we investigate incidents to the extent that is comensurate with the severity of the incident." I added, that if we did have a significient incident we would use an industry recognised incident investigation technique such as 5 whys or root cause analysis.
The auditing representative came back by email saying this:
The definition of an observation is something that could lead to a non-conformance, if allowed to continue uncorrected; or an existing condition without adequate supporting evidence to verify that it constitutes a non-conformance. An observation can also identify areas and/or processes of the organisation that may meet the minimum requirement of the standard, but which could be improved. An opportunity for improvement may be system or performance related and is normally addressed based on the auditor?s own experience, knowledge of industry?s best practice or practices within another unit/department of the organisation.
When I went to my internal auditing course it was impressed upon us that the first rule of auditing is that an audit is carried out against a standard, not whatever the auditor thinks is a good thing. In our case, complaince to the mining companys safety standards which we were given copies of.
I requested that this observation be reviewed with a view to its withdrawal as per my comments above.
I dont beleive any auditor has the right to drive our busienss nor does any auditor have the right to determine what best practice is. (I'm not saying we dont want to be best practice, but thats not the point.)
I resent being audited against whatever the auditor thinks is a good thing.
The MD is on leave so I will not be taking this further until I speak to him about this when he returns as this mining company is major customer for us.
Sorry all this is long winded; but I was wondering what views experienced auditors out there have on this and how we should approach this from here on.
thank you - k
We were recently audited by a contractor on behalf of a major international mining company, (annual survielance audit).
The audit report includes some observations. We were advised by the auditor at the time of the audit, that while we did not have to address a observation if we did not wish to do so, they may regard it as a non-conformance next time around (next year.)
The observation was: "No documented evidence that all significant incidents are investigated using an approved investigation methodology."
I replied to the auditing company saying that according to our definiition of a significient incident, we did not have any significient incidents in the last 12 months and that we investigate incidents to the extent that is comensurate with the severity of the incident." I added, that if we did have a significient incident we would use an industry recognised incident investigation technique such as 5 whys or root cause analysis.
The auditing representative came back by email saying this:
The definition of an observation is something that could lead to a non-conformance, if allowed to continue uncorrected; or an existing condition without adequate supporting evidence to verify that it constitutes a non-conformance. An observation can also identify areas and/or processes of the organisation that may meet the minimum requirement of the standard, but which could be improved. An opportunity for improvement may be system or performance related and is normally addressed based on the auditor?s own experience, knowledge of industry?s best practice or practices within another unit/department of the organisation.
When I went to my internal auditing course it was impressed upon us that the first rule of auditing is that an audit is carried out against a standard, not whatever the auditor thinks is a good thing. In our case, complaince to the mining companys safety standards which we were given copies of.
I requested that this observation be reviewed with a view to its withdrawal as per my comments above.
I dont beleive any auditor has the right to drive our busienss nor does any auditor have the right to determine what best practice is. (I'm not saying we dont want to be best practice, but thats not the point.)
I resent being audited against whatever the auditor thinks is a good thing.
The MD is on leave so I will not be taking this further until I speak to him about this when he returns as this mining company is major customer for us.
Sorry all this is long winded; but I was wondering what views experienced auditors out there have on this and how we should approach this from here on.
thank you - k