Definition Audits vs. Inspections - What is the Difference?

[wilsonmm]

Hello Folks!

I’m a new member of this website as of about three minutes ago, and delighted to find it. I’d like to begin my journey here with a question for ALL, and I’d love to have everyone with an answer to post it in his/her own unique words so I can sample it all and develop my own definition.

Although the question is simple, I don’t have a real clear feel for the difference in a “quality audit” verses a “quality inspection.” In your own best words, what do YOU see as the principal difference in audits and inspections?

Thanks in advance and I look forward to your replies.

 

[Wes Bucey]

No question in MY mind.
An inspection checks on the sufficiency of a product or process to do as planned.
An audit checks on whether a process follows a "plan," but doesn't render an opinion on the sufficiency of the actual plan.

An outrageous example:
ABC Company has a plan (QMS or Control Plan) to perform in-process inspection on the diameter of a turned part which will later be molded into a plastic housing.

An audit of the process would show the in-process inspection occurred according to plan.

An inspection of the process would show the in-process inspection was worthless because it didn't check for concentricity between several different size diameters on the part

Welcome to the Cove!

 

[howste]

My definitions are opposite what Wes said. I've just spent the past week doing an "audit" at an Air Force maintenance depot. We were looking at the processes to see not only if the plan was followed, but if the processes were effective (as in AS9100/ISO 9001 8.2.2 a&b). They also are required by regulation to do "inspections." The results of these inpections tend to be nit-picky findings showing noncompliance with requirements - even if the requirement didn't make sense.

 

[Wes Bucey]

How interesting!

When you perform an audit of any other organization to determine if it conforms to a Standard, do you really delve that deep (as in my example) to make a judgment call on the sufficiency of the process to be effective?

For example, when you observe an inspector performing a micrometer reading, do you double check the reading with a different calibrated instrument to see if it was sufficiently accurate? Do you check the micrometer to see that it reads to 4X or 10X the tolerance?

8.2.2.b uses the term "effectively implemented" which is ambiguous in regard to the kind of in-depth effectiveness beyond whether or not the process is effective in terms of the scope of the entire operation. Most would only look as a general CPA at the narrow scope whether the activity is implemented according to the plan (versus a forensic CPA who determines whether the activity is effective in relation to the organization.)

It is only when ALL the activities are parsed that an organization can determine whether they are effective in toto for the organization or whether a root cause investigation (inspection?) needs to be mounted to find the ineffective activity.

In my understanding, just as there are "accounting audits" and "forensic accounting audits" where one looks to see procedures are followed and the other one delves deeply, looking for evidence of fraud or wrongdoing, different organizations may have different motives and goals in performing either an audit or an inspection of their processes, depending on the net output of the processes.

Ultimately, it all comes down to cost versus benefit as to the scope of either an audit or an inspection. Couple this with the ability of an individual auditor or inspector to recognize whether an activity is "EFFECTIVE" versus whether it is "PERFORMED."

For example, I'm pretty sure I could recognize effective versus ineffective procedures and processes in almost any machine shop or assembly operation, but would struggle in a paint manufacturing plant. However, I could readily determine whether the procedures and processes were performed according to the plan set forth by the organization at almost any kind of operation from a news gathering organization to a gene-splitting biochemical plant. I would be able to tell (in my mind) whether the personnel were effectively performing the task even if I had no clue if the task was effective in the scope of the operation.

Consider an operation where 3 redundant measurements are made on a dimension. If the plan calls for 3 redundant measurements and they are performed, they are effectively implemented, but may be Muda in terms of value-added and therefore "ineffective" for the organization. Would the average outside quality auditor be able to declare the redundant inspections "ineffective?"

 

[wilsonmm]

Great responses so far and I thank you. I kept the question somewhat vague on purpose in the hopes of getting a broad range of responses. However, the post by Howste prompts me to get more specific.

Like Howste, I am also involved in Air Force QA of a huge test range. My responsibilities range from equipment maintenance, preventive maintenance, and general site maintenance, to other responsibilities like environmental, safety, test equipment, property control, design & fabrication engineering, logistics, security, as-built drawing systems, etc.

I have always considered sample checks such as checking drawings for accuracy, random safety checks, sample property verifications to be INSPECTIONS. On the other hand, I also check every line item of every preventive maintenance procedure for correct scheduling on every piece of equipment we have twice a year (10's of thousands of checks). Since this is a TOTAL check of the ENTIRE system, I have always considered this to be an audit function, but our corporate ISO auditor says it isn’t. So what is it that I do that WOULD be an audit rather than an inspection?

I came up through the technical ranks and cross trained into QA years ago without the benefit of a lot of college like probably all of you have so I admit I'm kind of behind the curve. Thanks again!

 

[Wes Bucey]

I agree with your own ISO auditor.

Even so, merely comparing the actuality of the activity of preventive maintenance to see that it conforms with the original schedule for the activity is not contributing toward continual improvement unless each item on the schedule is also reviewed to determine whether the schedule is

• adequate,
• too frequent,
  or
• not frequent enough.

Here's an analogy:
When I was a boy just after WWII, folks were "conditioned" by oil companies to change oil in autos every 3,000 miles.

Most experts today say that is too frequent and merely wastes oil and money. However, a poster outside a service station I pass every day continues to suggest 3,000 mile intervals and has its personnel write stickers to paste in the doorjamb with the 3,000 miles calculated from the odometer reading after each change.

In a personal or corporate environment, continual improvement would indicate re-examining the schedule for sufficiency.

What would I term the process of re-evaluating? How about "re-evaluating"?

Don't be intimidated by the initials after some guy's name indicating how far he went in school. Don't sell yourself short if you don't have the initials.
40 years ago, we said of college degrees:
You know what B S is don't you?
Well M S is "more of the same"
and PhD is "piled higher and deeper"

one person checking thousands of activities against schedules may have value, what would you say it is? It may be a bit like 100% inspection to detect nonconformities.

 

[Jim Howe]

Hello Folks!

I’m a new member of this website as of about three minutes ago, and delighted to find it. I’d like to begin my journey here with a question for ALL, and I’d love to have everyone with an answer to post it in his/her own unique words so I can sample it all and develop my own definition.

Although the question is simple, I don’t have a real clear feel for the difference in a “quality audit” verses a “quality inspection.” In your own best words, what do YOU see as the principal difference in audits and inspections?

Thanks in advance and I look forward to your replies.

I believe in some instances they overlap. I routinely perform product audits That require both measurements and systems information. We have several prepared forms to do this. Sample attached. The idea is that twice a week i journey to shipping and randomley pick a product that is ready to ship, pull the appropriate form and perform the inspections, finally I tap our information system to compare required to actual observed.

 

[MikeL]

Audits vs Inspections

I thought that an audit would be by personnel independent of the area audited.

We have to do product audits different from product inspections.

The final product inspectors are part of production. They have a checklist, do inspections and fill in a record.

For Product Audits we get together employees from all over the site. We grab a pallet at random, pull it apart and check that the final inspection was properly recorded, do some checks to confirm the inspection results. Perhaps most importantly look at the product from the customer's point of view - labelling, cleanliness, appearance defects.

 

[Hershal]

How interesting!

When you perform an audit of any other organization to determine if it conforms to a Standard, do you really delve that deep (as in my example) to make a judgment call on the sufficiency of the process to be effective?

It is entirely possible that an audit of an AF facility will in fact require such a judgment call.

Let me throw a monkey wrench (sorry Claes, an adjustable cresent wrench) into the works. An inspection body accredited under ISO/IEC 17020 would do inspections of some item, to include numerous examples of finished product, and an audit of the QMS and process, and determine if the process were both compliant and effective to prevent non-conformances in the product. The accrediting body in turn assesses the inspection body to determine if their personnel are qualified in whatever the field if inspection is and if they are doing what is required under the Standard. The accrediting body does not get involved directly with the product - that is the role of the inspection body - but ensures that the inspection body's process is both compliant and effective for its scope of accreditation.

Let me give a practical example. I have assessed several inspection bodies for wood truss manufactruing. The wood trusses are the parts of the roof that hold the shingles up, that is, the pointy frame parts of the roof (OK, a non-technical description). Very simple, bare-bones manufacturing. An inspection body accredited to inspect trusses must know the applicable building codes, the ISO/IEC 17020 requirements, the requirements of the accrediting body, lumber, traceability, QMS, and the list goes on. When I observe an inspection at a truss plant then I look for the inspector to verify the elements of the QMS, drawing and document control, traceability to received goods, solid manufacturing proceeses, stamp/label control (the inspection body owns the stamps/labels, not the truss plant), what happens to the scrap. The inspection body makes a call whether the plant is effective in its process and whether the product conforms. The inspection body has a direct role then in public safety. After all, we don't want a truss to fail.

The original question was a difference between inspection and audit. My best answer is......it depends on the level and the application.

Hershal

 

[Wes Bucey]

Golly, Hershal, you've been hanging around me too much. You are now officially a member of the
"tell how to build a watch when someone asks the time club"
Your last sentence is really the best!
The original question was a difference between inspection and audit. My best answer is......it depends on the level and the application.