1 - Few n/c's if any found during 3rd party audit. No majors
2 - n/c's have some depth to them....not just a few document control or missing log entries...
3 - The dept audited doesn't feel nitpicked
4 - Summary of n/c's easy to generate...organized
5 - No n/c's to element 4.17 during 3rd party audit.
6 - I/A identifies areas for continuous improvement
7 - Auddit schedule is adhered to...with some variation, but not always being postponed.
Off the top of my head. Suppose there are a few more.
don't quite agreed with you on the following point
1. few n/cs during 3rd party don't necessary reflect an effective internal audit, what if there are lots of n/cs but that none are major but just lots of paperworks created 'junks'
isn't internal audit suppose to directly influencing the effectiveness of
QS implemented ? So what then are performance indicators of a successful internal audit ?
re: what if there are lots of n/cs but that none are major but just lots of paperworks created 'junks'
That's a tough one. Hopefully the 3rd party auditor isn't nit-picking as well. Overtime those should minimize. (If they are paperwork "junks" do you need the paperwork?)
You bring up a good point I missed this AM (need more caffeine!) Internal audits should be able to indicate to management the effectiveness of the system as a portion of the management review. We tracked N/C's by department as well as element and procedure. We also looked at corrective actions for possible implementation in other departments. We looked for reduced N/C's overtime...if the Quality System, of which IA's are a part of are effective, then overtime there should be less IA n/c's.