Some thoughts from the ISO ListServe:
****************
From: Nancy Jennejohn <
[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 14:44:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Internal Audit Reporting /VanDorp/Antonov
From: Boncho
Darryl asked:
> I am interested in determining what a common practice is for
> internal audit reporting. (apart from nonconformances or observations
> or findings) i.e. do internal auditors in general, create a
> formal "report" or is the output of their process just the
> observations/findings/nonconpliances?
Hi, Darryl,
I usually recommend the audit team to prepare official report. The report is addressed to the top management, Quality Manager, Head of the audited department and other interested internal parties/persons.
The report usually include:
- audit identification part (date, number, auditors, goals, audited
departments, other);
- the statement of the team - is the audit goals achieved;
- overall conclusion for the level of conformance of the audit area;
- brief description of NC detected and related CA prescriptions;
- other observations and remarques related to the audit performed, which are
not NC, but should be considered for the improvements in the affected area.
The report may include copies of NC notes as attachments.
As document the report usually should be written "in the language of management" - i.e. short and clear statements, clear suggestions and proposals, conclusions - they shell direct management for making appropriate decisions.
Hope this answers your question.
Regards,
Boncho Antonov
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 14:48:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Internal Audit Reporting /VanDorp/Naish
From: PNaish
Darryl,
I think the value in your internal audit process is what information you gain from it to make it better. Part of that is knowing not only what did not work right but also what is working well.
As a general rule the following items are the items we collect during an internal audit:
Person/people audited; area/dept.; auditor/s; date; documents audited such as section of QA manual, section or subsection of standard, procedure, work instruction or the like; quality records (normally being specific such as PO numbers), work order numbers, or date of receiving inspection report; equipment numbers where applicable; and what the findings were. Findings include that Karen has a good knowledge of the parts she purchases and follows the procedure exactly for steps 10 through 25 that I audited her on. Or Tom followed most of the steps but he skipped step 16 and 17 and said he did not know them. All the other people audited followed these steps exactly. Or Susy did not completely fill out PO 167825 and 167939 and photocopy and attach so the manager knows what she did not fill out. The other 15 I looked at were complete.
My feeling is that the more a manager or supervisor of an area know the more they have a better chance of determining what to fix. Since the other people followed the procedure and Tom did not, as a manager I can find out why Tom does not know and see if anyone besides the people audited did not know. If I simply say someone did not know as a manager I may never find out that it is Tom who did not know and I can not help him by getting him training.
For Susy I can see what part of the form was not completed. Then I can help Susy if she understands the importance of it or I may find it is not information needed any more and get the form changed.
I personally have seen a number of audits that did not specify the person or the steps in a process or the forms or the places on the form. By the time the manager went to fix the problem no one seemed to know exactly what the details were so the problem recurred due to incomplete problem solving information.
The other side of it is follow up. If I don't know who or what or where it is hard for me to ensure that particular situation was corrected. And per the examples not all of an area or all of the documents were incorrect so if I audit the ones that were correct before I will not be able to verify the non conformances have been corrected.
Phyllis
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 14:51:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Internal Audit Reporting /VanDorp/Braaten
From: Scott
Darryl inquired:
> I am interested in determining what a common practice is for
> internal audit reporting. (apart from nonconformances or observations
> or findings) i.e. do internal auditors in general, create a
> formal "report" or is the output of their process just the
> observations/findings/nonconpliances?
I like to have each auditor record evidence of conformance. I review the evidence to ensure that the auditor understood the requirements and the intents of my checklist. I'll write a formal report including a summary of the sample taken, the nonconformances and observations, as well as percent conforming. The percent conforming can be more accurately calculated from the conforming evidence, discounting any requirements which the auditor determined to be "N/A" for the sample. If the conforming evidence is useful to the rest of the organization you can include it in the report, however most are too busy to go through 8 pages of "conformance" to see if they have any assignments.
The report and completed checklists are maintained as records of the audit, and I refer back to them when designing the next checklist for the same audit.
Hope this helps,
Scott
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 14:52:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Internal Audit Reporting/VanDorp/Hoelker
From: Patricia
A report should be created stating the objective evidence used to arrive at the output of either positive observations, observations, minor or major noncompliance. The more detailed the report the easier it is for the process owner to know exactly what the issue is and to determine the correct actions to take.
Pat Hoelker
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 14:56:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Internal Audit Reporting/VanDorp/Madden
From: Lori
Darryl,
We have an exit meeting after each internal audit which includes supervisors, VPs, President, and anyone else who wants to be there. In addition to presenting the findings, I write an Audit Report which includes the scope, the auditors, the findings, positive aspects and opportunities for improvement. Each attendee at the meeting gets a copy, and the report is also posted on our information bulletin board. If we just presented the findings alone, audits are perceived as all negative. But pointing out what people are doing right is a motivator.
Lori
