During the audit, do we have to interview top management?

[Helmut Jilling]

During a 3 day system audit, I audit top management on day 1, hour 1. We go over their management review records, business plans, quality objectives and resulting action items. I transfer this information to the 13 other identified processes as their goals/measurables - are they meeting their targets, is the defined process working? The rest of the 3 days are spent with the people who actually do the work.

I do a similar approach, but there are a few slippery CEO's who always manage to duck out one way or another.

 

[Paul Simpson]

I thnk it would be more appropriate to refer to it as Indirect labor, not non-value-added. Most accountants I speak with call it Indirect. Maybe some anti-ISO managers call it non-value, but by they're defintion, top managent is non-value also...

Just using the terms they use in Lean Manufacturing.

I think it is important for people like us to understand that all of the work we do is not directly benefiting the client.

So the next time you are arguing with an Ops Manager about the layout or style of a quality manual, don't forget .... it's not value adding.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Just using the terms they use in Lean Manufacturing.

I think it is important for people like us to understand that all of the work we do is not directly benefiting the client.

So the next time you are arguing with an Ops Manager about the layout or style of a quality manual, don't forget .... it's not value adding.

I know you are being funny, but I will disagree with the comment. Indirect labor includes accountants, managers, supervisors, IT personnel...I would hardly call them non-value-added. They all clearly facilitate the customer getting product better, on-time, etc.

Lean uses the term non-value-added, but I suggest it carries the wrong connotation. They add value to the process. They don't directly add value to the product. They add value indirectly.

We don't need to get into an involved series of posts over this, however. I am confident people pretty much understand this. I am sure you do. The risk is if inexperienced managers start thinking this way, they become capable of really foolish ideas.

Foolish ideas like Lean means firing people...or, Ford replacing experienced workers with new people. Gosh, don't let the accountants get ahold of that idea. They have already damaged the US auto industry enough.

 

[Paul Simpson]

I know you are being funny, but I will disagree with the comment. Indirect labor includes accountants, managers, supervisors, IT personnel...I would hardly call them non-value-added. They all clearly facilitate the customer getting product better, on-time, etc.

Obviously not that funny! As I mentioned in the earlier post the term used is specific to Lean. If you don't like it - fine.

BTW There are some who would argue the list of jobs you have provided are examples of people who do not have a strong customer focus because they are too far away from the "doing" bit of the process.

Lean uses the term non-value-added, but I suggest it carries the wrong connotation. They add value to the process. They don't directly add value to the product. They add value indirectly.

Again it is a specific term used to identify where actions contribute directly to the product the customer is buying. It doesn't mean that support processes (like IT ) aren't important - just that they are not on the same delivery process that the customer sees.

Just to give you a bit of an insight - if an employee is assessing the proportion of value add in doing up a wheel nut the only "value add" bit is the last quarter turn as the nut "bites" - the logic is if you understand exactly where the value is being added in what you do then you can focus your effort on things that pay the bills (as opposed to overhead).

We don't need to get into an involved series of posts over this, however. I am confident people pretty much understand this. I am sure you do. The risk is if inexperienced managers start thinking this way, they become capable of really foolish ideas.

We need a debate if you contradict posts .... Even inexperienced managers understand the need for support activity.

The problem is many "experienced" managers focus on their own silos and not on the activity the customer is prepared to pay for.

Foolish ideas like Lean means firing people...or, Ford replacing experienced workers with new people. Gosh, don't let the accountants get ahold of that idea. They have already damaged the US auto industry enough.

Do you really think Lean is foolish? I find it one of the most refreshing ideas in management systems for a long time.

In my books any philosophy that focusses on waste throughout the processes has to be a good thing .... any thoughts?

The bean counters have been running a lot of automotive industry for a long time. Exceptions are in some of the successful countries / companies - what does that tell us?

 

[Helmut Jilling]

...
Do you really think Lean is foolish? I find it one of the most refreshing ideas in management systems for a long time.

In my books any philosophy that focusses on waste throughout the processes has to be a good thing .... any thoughts?

NO! I do NOT think Lean is foolish. I left out the quote marks and it can be misread! Sorry.

Lean is an excellent program and fits beautifully into an ISO structure.

My intent was to say many managers believe that
"Lean means firing people and getting rid of headcount."
THAT idea is foolish, and misses the point of Lean entirely. Rightsizing does NOT necessarily mean Downsizing. But, many accountants seem to think so (except in their own departments...hmmm? )

 

[Bob Bonville]

To me the answer is very simple. You should interview them if the internal procedure says they have some form of responsibility as it relates to the process being audited.

They should know the process to the extent that they are involved from an authority, accountability, roles and responsibilities point of view.

Bob

 

[AndyN]

Thanks, Bob, for resurrecting this old, but interesting thread!

If an internal auditor doesn't engage with top management in the planning phase of the audit, what value is being lost? It's common, isn't it, for the internal audit program not to be on top managements' radar screen. As a result, what happens? No support for findings, no escalation for actions, no budget for the improvements found.

I learned (a few years ago) while riding around Detroit, listening to Dr. Joy Brown (a qualified clinical Psycologist and engineer) that if you want someone to behave different, especially if what they do offends/annoys you, that you have to be prepared to do something different as well.

I hear all kinds of internal auditors complain about 'management doesn't help, support or get involved in the audit'. My response - what did you do to involve them? And I don't mean inviting them to the opening and closing meetings, either!!

Your audits have to address things that are on their radar screens. What's topical, keeping them awake at night. Not because "ISO-says-so" and doing calibration in December because you CB auditor bought off your audit plan isn't a great reason to schedule an audit.

So the answer to the OP (back all those years ago)? You'd better engage management early in the planning process and keep them involved throughout the audit - by making it looks for the results they want/need to see.. They have no more idea what to expect from audits than you did going into auditor training, so help them out!!

 

[Bob Bonville]

Thanks Andy,

In actuality, as ISO Management Rep/Quality System Manager I enlisted their direct involvement another way too. I was faced with a huge increase in the number and scope of internal audits. I went to our VP/GM and convinced him that we should train select members of the executive team to become "Pool Auditors". We had Perry Johnson come in and give them the 2-3 day auditor training class, equipped them with checklists, teamed them with one of my internal auditors to start and turned them loose to do audits outside their immediate scope of responsibiltiy. I think they did 1-2 audits/year. What an eye opener for them. They actually did a pretty good job.

Bob

 

[CallNaba]

Hi, This is an interesting topic.

I strongly believe that the top management function must be audited during an internal audit to add value to the "Management Commitment". As a representative of the top management, the Management Representative may also perform as auditee in this case - going by 5.5.2 of ISO 9001:2000
"Top management shall appoint a member of management who, irrespective of other responsibilities, shall have responsibility and authority that includes
a) ensuring that processes needed for the quality management system are established, implemented and maintained,
b) reporting to top management on the performance of the quality management system and any need for improvement, and
c) ensuring the promotion of awareness of customer requirements throughout the organization."

The MR is the link to the Top Management