I too have looked at Patricia's chart and it certainly is a unique method, one I'm sure would knock the socks off most external auditors!
For purposes of clarification on its use, I have some questions regarding the ranking system for the 'status' and 'importance' aspects. What is data is 'behind' the selection of the 1 = low etc.? Who comes up with these?
If we could get a bit more background to the selection of the rankings, I think it'd probably be an awesome tool and one most non-quality management would like to participate in.
Thanks, in advance, Patricia!
Hello Gentleman,
I'm pleased that my Audit Planning "Tool" aroused some curiosity. You're both right, the justification for the "Status" ranking is not evident in the chart, so let me explain...
Just as a refresher...we know that ISO wants us to consider the following when planning an audit:
1) The status (i.e. the performance status) and importance of the process
2) The frequency and nature of customer complaints
3) The results of previous audits (internal, external, environmental, limited scope, layered process audits etc.)
First, to address the "
Importance" question...this is definitely a subjective ranking (as noted at the top of the chart), and I encourage the Lead Auditor to rationalize the importance of each process. Perhaps ask yourself..."
How important is this process to the overall success of the company"... or "
What process could we live without, and still survive???... Or..."
After the Customer-oriented Processes, which classifications are most critical?" (system-, support-, or management-oriented processes??) Whatever you decide, you just have to be able to rationalize it to yourself, and of course to your external auditor.
Secondly, to address the
"Performance Status" of the process, I use the data in my
"Metrics DASHBOARD". It's a Metrics Database which I created, wherein each of the metrics in the company is linked to one of the 12 Key Processes. The metric's performance is assessed, at least monthly, and a performance "Status" is assigned, based on 3 factors:
1) Current Period Performance against Plan (or objective)
2) Year-to-Date Trend Performance
3) Projected Trend Performance for the next 4 months
Based on company "Status" definitions of
"Favorable" (Green),
"Unfavorable" (Red) or
"Needs Improvement" (Yellow), each metric is assigned a "Status". The respective metrics for each of the 12 Key Processes are then averaged together to give an overall "Performance Status" for that process. At the end of a 12 month cycle, the Process Performance is calculated for the past 12 month period, and a numerical value is associated with it for calculation purposes.
Since the standard expects you to consider "
process status" as one of the factors to assess in setting your Audit Schedule, this was the best way I could see of doing that...and substantiating it mathematically...Most companies don't do it, and most Auditors don't ask how the Audit Plan was derived...and if they did, they would soon discover that, while some companies have a "
partially justified rationale" for performing their audit...they will rarely find that
all required criteria have been factored in.
I think this is the most comprehensive "kick at the cat" I can come up with...but I'm always in "Continual Improvement" mode...so I welcome any comments or criticism.

and hope this answers your questions...

...no magic really...I just like this little icon!!
