Does your External Audit reflect your business systems?

[Paul Simpson]

Following another thread I would be interested to know how other cove members view their external audits. The idea of the external audit is that it reflects how the organization is performing - if you like the audit is holding up a mirror to the organization to see itself from another view.

So how do you rate your external audit?

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

The idea of the external audit is that it reflects how the organization is performing - if you like the audit is holding up a mirror to the organization to see itself from another view.

We certainly find more in the internal audits.

I think that stands to reason, however: The external auditors examine our entire system two days/year. Our internal auditors work in it daily, and audit much smaller portions at any given time. Thus, they are able to examine things in much greater detail. I would be very dissatisfied if they did not find more. I expect them to.

What I do want from the external auditors is that they provide us with an overview and data to back the findings from the internal audits up.

/Claes

 

[cncmarine]

This thread irritates me more then anything on the cove.

An audit is a sample. It is your job as managers to find and correct the nonconformities in your quality system. If you are waiting for your registrar to find the nonconformities in your system before you take corrective action….

Then you have an ineffective system.

 

[Rachel]

This thread irritates me more then anything on the cove.

An audit is a sample. It is your job as managers to find and correct the nonconformities in your quality system. If you are waiting for your registrar to find the nonconformities in your system before you take corrective action….

Then you have an ineffective system.

No one is disputing that. What we are asking here is if people think that externals are value-added, or a necessary evil. And - I think it is a fair question to be asking. There are good internal auditors and there are bad internal auditors - you have to admit that. So why can't the same be said for external auditors?

During our last audit, the auditor took something and wrote it up as an OFI. It was related to MR - I was of the opinion that it was a NC, but my boss said it might stir things up too much and get the top bosses' backs up. So, OFI it was. Political. Problem is that MR is a fairly confidential process around here - there was very little evidence that things are actually completed, other than assurances that "it's definitely discussed". Nothing comes across my desk, that's for sure. As an external, I would have called that a NC - but to each his own, I suppose.

It's not that I'm waiting for my auditor to identify nonconformances for me. Sometimes the auditor's findings can be used politically - to deal with changes that are required but are not getting the necessary support, for example. Above all - we have an internal audit system that works, and we are certainly not sitting back and expecting our external auditors to come and clean up our mess - but when word of mouth seems to get us through an assessment, then he** yes, I'm going to question the suitability and the value of the process. Sometimes you just don't get what you pay for.

 

[cncmarine]

No. Registration Audits are not a value added process.

The majority of companies achieve ISO registration to sustain or for new business.


Did you write a CA for the OFI?

 

[Rachel]

Did you write a CA for the OFI?

Yes, and it has been implemented.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

This thread irritates me more then anything on the cove.

Really? I think it is a great question. If it irritates you so much, why waste your time participating in this thread, then? There are other thousands of threads in the Cove. Life is too short to be wasted with irritating things that can be avoided.

An audit is a sample. It is your job as managers to find and correct the nonconformities in your quality system. If you are waiting for your registrar to find the nonconformities in your system before you take corrective action…

Good answer. But this has nothing to do with the question posed.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Quote: (Originally Posted by cncmarine) This thread irritates me more then anything on the cove.


I don't see what the problem is, but maybe you will explain. In my introduction I thought it clear. We all develop systems and some of us invite external bodies to assess them. Problems occur when their findings are not the same as ours - and more important are not the same as what we (as managers) are telling our own peers and managing directors / CEOs.



Quote: An audit is a sample. Agreed



Quote: It is your job as managers to find and correct the nonconformities in your quality system. If you are waiting for your registrar to find the nonconformities in your system before you take corrective action….

Then you have an ineffective system.
If only life were so simple! I have worked at good companies and bad. I spent 8 months telling one senior management team they had to carry out a management review - the auditor raised nothing.

The point of the poll is that, as professionals we have a good idea how good or bad our systems are. We may know where the problems are and have told the management team that our systems are at risk but if the auditors don't find the same problems then it looks as if we are crying wolf.

Similiarly if we tell the management team that the system is working effectively and an outsider comes in and leaves a long list of "non compliances" then it looks as if we haven't done a good job. No matter that these non compliances are a list of nit picks and opinions.

cncmarine try and have another look at what the post is trying to achieve and then, if it still irritates, choose the ignore button.

Sidney - you are the master of the deft phrase. Ever thought of being a diplomat?

 

[cncmarine]

"The point of the poll is that, as professionals we have a good idea how good or bad our systems are. We may know where the problems are and have told the management team that our systems are at risk but if the auditors don't find the same problems then it looks as if we are crying wolf."


If you know where the problems are then take corrective action and fix the problem. If you do not have top management support then it is the old"4.2" quality system failure.


Sidney, debate is a part of the cove and this is a debate. If you do not like it then you ..go some where else

 

[Rachel]

"The point of the poll is that, as professionals we have a good idea how good or bad our systems are. We may know where the problems are and have told the management team that our systems are at risk but if the auditors don't find the same problems then it looks as if we are crying wolf."

If you know where the problems are then take corrective action and fix the problem. If you do not have top management support then it is the old"4.2" quality system failure.

Wow.
Your management must be absolute *angels* to deal with if you cannot think of even *one* example of this problem from your own experience.

Sidney, debate is a part of the cove and this is a debate. If you do not like it then you ..go some where else

Not what you say, but how you say it...you started it harshly - don't expect otherwise in return.