How will "continual improvement" be audited?

[Marc]

How will "continual improvement" be audited?

What will be the requirements for auditors to be judged competent to audit continual improvement?

Having read http://www.irca.org/en-gb/resources/APG-papers/Auditing-continual-improvement/ I think a worm hole is being opened.

 

[Reg Morrison]

We have at least one paper from the ISO TC 176 APG on this subject:

http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livel...lImprovement.doc.pdf?nodeid=3553366&vernum=-2

 

[Marc]

I saw that. It's a restatement, for all intents and purposes, of the link I put in.

I just posted on this subject to see what folks here have to say. My feeling is this is going to be a very subjective thing to audit.

 

[Bev D]

It is a squishy requirement. much like preventive action it is difficult fro most companies to think about how do this well and for auditors to be able to 'know it when they see it' if its not on some form or other.

the first difficulty is defining what it is. the Aerospace example given is spot on, but how many people are going to remember let alone internalize it for their application.

the second difficulty is with objective evidence. Should companies use a form like a the corrective form? auditors will recognize it, but is that really the most effective way to provide objective evidence of continual improvement. should we demonstrate results only (cycle times continually improving, the number of NCRs continually reducing, fewer and fewer out of control occurrences...) or do we document activity (how many continual events did we have - Kaizens or other rapid projects were run, IDEAs implemented)

It will be challenging for sure...but anything worth doing - and I think this is worth doing - is worth the investment.

 

[RoxaneB]

I believe while there is some subjectivity included - but, let's be honest here, when is there not? - the "amount" of it is reduced by putting the focus on the establishment of a process for CI and not on the actual existence of demonstrated improvement.

The only real solution for the auditor is to verify how the organization has determined this proposed rate of improvement, how it has evaluated the associated risks, and how this relates to customer requirements and the monitoring of feedback on customer satisfaction. It would be almost impossible to issue a non-conformance report stating: ?There was not enough continual improvement.

Recommendations should be geared towards the process of CI such as the sources for triggering CI initiatives and objectives. For example, a company may have an amazing warehouse of data in a Business Intelligence system. Yet, if the objectives and CI initiatives are all based on customer feedback, the company is missing out on a key information-based source for assessing process capability and identifying possible CI opportunity.

Or perhaps an organization has a wonderful Employee Suggestion process, yet does not capture the process for handing suggestions or implementing those that it accepts.

To me, auditors should be focusing on the process for CI (identifying, capturing, addressing CI opportunities), not necessarily whether or not CI was achieved. Then again, the process of failing to meet a CI goal should be part of the CI process. ;-)