J
Re: Does the person been audited have the right ro amend audit report?
Tricky question, and not one with a simple Yes/No answer, as various people have written. And one that's very hard to answer without seeing the exact wording of what was written, and what was proposed in response. For example, some organisations have certain 'trigger words' that get people's hackles up. I'm usually happy to revise perhaps or certainly reword an audit report in that case, to get to something we can both agree on.
I used to think no manager ever had the right to request changes to an internal audit report, but I changed my mind on that a long time ago. I often send a 'draft report' to a manager and invite their feedback. My view in the case of an adverse finding (eg, nonconformity) is that they may not like the finding, but they should not be able to refute it provided that it is: written clearly, objectively and you must have adequate and reasonable objective evidence from which to draw that conclusion. If they provide further evidence, I'm willing to consider it, because perhaps I missed it before or misunderstood.
After all, as Helmut says:
And nothing can damage that process more than an audit process gone wrong. It does sound as though this one has.
Is it possible these were perceived badly?
With internal audit reports, I always tread very, very, very delicately with 'suggestions for improvement'. They could be interpreted by a manager as being told how to do his job/run her department and managers don't - not surprisingly!- like being told this. (Auditors might not like being told how they should audit, for example).
If I do have suggestions I am careful to word them as that, and propose that the manager 'consider' an idea.
Is he right? Did the report convey the exact findings accurately? Because if not, I'd argue back too.
Different people often recall different things in a conversation. What were the findings? How much did his suggested alteration change things?
If he's asking you to withhold or alter real findings, I'd disagree. Again, provided you are accurately reflecting findings and drawing reasonable conclusions.
I"m not sure of your meaning here - are the internal auditors competent? Trained? Experienced?
Perhaps. But again, it really does sound as though the process has degenerated into a 'who's right/wrong' argument, which neither side will win.
I've had to make some very difficult audit calls in my time and deliver some audit reports with very adverse findings with a very hostile manager disputing them. I've found that provided I followed an agreed and fair & documented process, and provided that my findings were objectively reported and impartial, the manager was unable to argue back about the findings. Whether they liked it or not is something else.
If a report really does accurately and objectively report a true situation, then yes, it's management's decision up the line what to do. But I'd certainly want to be sure all MY bases were covered before digging in for a 'showdown at the OK corral'... and overall, it's infinitely more effective and useful to look for an outcome that stays focussed on the real goal: improvement (not who's right/wrong).
Tricky question, and not one with a simple Yes/No answer, as various people have written. And one that's very hard to answer without seeing the exact wording of what was written, and what was proposed in response. For example, some organisations have certain 'trigger words' that get people's hackles up. I'm usually happy to revise perhaps or certainly reword an audit report in that case, to get to something we can both agree on.
I used to think no manager ever had the right to request changes to an internal audit report, but I changed my mind on that a long time ago. I often send a 'draft report' to a manager and invite their feedback. My view in the case of an adverse finding (eg, nonconformity) is that they may not like the finding, but they should not be able to refute it provided that it is: written clearly, objectively and you must have adequate and reasonable objective evidence from which to draw that conclusion. If they provide further evidence, I'm willing to consider it, because perhaps I missed it before or misunderstood.
After all, as Helmut says:
there is little point in writing a bunch of stuff that has not been discussed or agreed upon. This is not something the auditor does to the auditee, this is a process of finding problems and improvements.
In the report we stated a few suggestions for improvement to the department. ?
With internal audit reports, I always tread very, very, very delicately with 'suggestions for improvement'. They could be interpreted by a manager as being told how to do his job/run her department and managers don't - not surprisingly!- like being told this. (Auditors might not like being told how they should audit, for example).
If I do have suggestions I am careful to word them as that, and propose that the manager 'consider' an idea.
Anyway, the manager read the report and rejected it with the reason we did not conveye the exact audit findings in the report.
Initially he has already admittedthe audit findings verbally in the audit. But he insisted we do not add it into the report because it might cause trouble to him.
If he's asking you to withhold or alter real findings, I'd disagree. Again, provided you are accurately reflecting findings and drawing reasonable conclusions.
The audit team has formed by employee which not really as proffesional as we thought of.
The internal quality auditor just report as what we found.
I've had to make some very difficult audit calls in my time and deliver some audit reports with very adverse findings with a very hostile manager disputing them. I've found that provided I followed an agreed and fair & documented process, and provided that my findings were objectively reported and impartial, the manager was unable to argue back about the findings. Whether they liked it or not is something else.
If a report really does accurately and objectively report a true situation, then yes, it's management's decision up the line what to do. But I'd certainly want to be sure all MY bases were covered before digging in for a 'showdown at the OK corral'... and overall, it's infinitely more effective and useful to look for an outcome that stays focussed on the real goal: improvement (not who's right/wrong).
