Ego aside, another take on OFI is that they may have found a train of thought they picked up on but during the audit, they didn't have the time or the evidence to definatively nail you on it. (One piece of non-conformance was not enough to be a systematic pattern)
During our external audits, we have a corporate audit escort who fight tooth and nail to push back on such things. I've been privy to some potential audit findings but got negotiated off. There was a lot of behind the scenes haggling especially on findings that will be political. If the case is weak and doesn't stand up to our counter arguments, often the auditor gives up the fight but fires a shot across the brows with an OFI instead of a finding.
We've had the same lead auditor for a number of years and the more he audits, the more he learns about our business. This means he can dig down and also remember what one site said when saying "site X is responsible for that".
On the other hand, I'd argue a continual auditor may be susceptable to 'stockholm syndrom' where they can become too familiar and sympethetic with his audience.
During our external audits, we have a corporate audit escort who fight tooth and nail to push back on such things. I've been privy to some potential audit findings but got negotiated off. There was a lot of behind the scenes haggling especially on findings that will be political. If the case is weak and doesn't stand up to our counter arguments, often the auditor gives up the fight but fires a shot across the brows with an OFI instead of a finding.
We've had the same lead auditor for a number of years and the more he audits, the more he learns about our business. This means he can dig down and also remember what one site said when saying "site X is responsible for that".
On the other hand, I'd argue a continual auditor may be susceptable to 'stockholm syndrom' where they can become too familiar and sympethetic with his audience.
love that. Two Pennys - and I am a Gemini!
Cheers!
