You make some very valid points.
Ok, so let me throw out a wild idea. Would it ever be feasible for evaluation of services?
Could we come to a point where auditor/auditee provide evaluation? You do your thing, and turn in the report to management. Then, you ask them to evaluate you on auditing style, knowledge, etc.
Here's the tricky part-you get to evaluate them as an auditee. Yes, they are a customer; I know.
Do you get to pick and choose who you get to audit? Is it entirely possible that if you as an auditor, poorly rate a client bad enough, that your employer would care and not accept them?
Ok, so let me throw out a wild idea. Would it ever be feasible for evaluation of services?
Could we come to a point where auditor/auditee provide evaluation? You do your thing, and turn in the report to management. Then, you ask them to evaluate you on auditing style, knowledge, etc.
Here's the tricky part-you get to evaluate them as an auditee. Yes, they are a customer; I know.
Do you get to pick and choose who you get to audit? Is it entirely possible that if you as an auditor, poorly rate a client bad enough, that your employer would care and not accept them?
Auditors are supose to assess systems, and provide value. If the auditors are monitored, and reports and findings reviewed, it would be possible to determine who the good auditors are, and who the bad ones are.
Every registrar knows who their better and porrer ones are, even if they don't admit it. It is not perfect, but it will and does lead to improvements in the auditor base. really bad ones should be fixed or removed.
The problem arises that many 2nd party system would not see the value, but I do. It can have a tremendous outcome if done correctly. But it would not be easy.
However....




