Internal Audit Observation - Disinterested Auditees

[AndyN]

Re: Internal Audit observation

In a previous post, I asked:

Why is this a problem? Acting casually isn't necessarily a bad thing - no auditor should expect people to be 'on parade' during an audit. It's also often a reflection of whether they understand your approach to the audit and why it's important. I'd suggest you might want to look at the way you may the audit relevant to them and their management...

I'd still like to see a reason for this being a problem worth bringing to management's attention! What is the expected outcome?

 

[PE-2011]

Re: Internal Audit observation

Dear AndyN,

I have seen your question. I would like to clarify as follows.

1) You stated casually is not a bad thing. Casually is a sign of that person's negative approach to Management System. Do you feel it help for continual improvement?


2) No auditor should expect people to be 'on parade' during an audit:- It is not a auditor's expectation. It should be a positive approach to the Quality system to the organization.

3) I'd still like to see a reason for this being a problem worth bringing to management's attention! PLEASE READ THREADS IN THIS QUESTION BY OTHER MEMBERS.

4) What is the expected outcome? See QMS is not a individual approach. It is a group approach and each employees should have positive approach including top management. Somewhere sometime it is happening "just need a certificate", that case MR or QM will be in trouble between organization and the auditor from CB.

Hope this will help you to understand.

Regards
Maheswari

 

[SteelMaiden]

I also am not quite understanding the statement of people acting casually, and then saying that people don't know things like the quality policy. That doesn't sound like casual behaviour, it sounds like ineffective implementation and lack of commitment to the system. We expect all of our people to behave in a casual, everyday manner when there are auditors in house.

Being casual does not equal lack of respect nor does it signify that people are not taking the audit seriously. Now, you certainly could observe people acting disrespectfully, and you could observe people not showing commitment to the QMS, but should you choose to report these observations you need to word them so that you convey what you want the management team to address. I really have to say that if you gave me a report that stated my team acted casually, I wouldn't have any idea of what you were trying to tell me.

 

[Sardokar]

I believe the word "casually" is the wrong one to be used . I think (i may be mistaken) that what the OP is trying to say by "casually" is that the auditees are indifferent to the auditor and the audit process,not giving it a lot of importance .

The wording is important ...espescially when you post on a forum . It is easier to convey what you mean when you are speaking face to face to management though , fortunately

well ...most of the times

 

[Jason PCSwitches]

Behavior has nothing to do with it unless that behavior has a direct impact on the QMS. If personnel are nonchalant but demonstrate knowledge & conformity to the applicable QMS processes & standards, to document this would be a preference of the auditor and in essence reflect a bias (personal opinion) of the auditor. That's missing the cue, I may like brown gravy, you may like white gravy, as long as their is gravy that lives up to the requirements laid forth everything else is trivial.

 

[qusys]

Behavior has nothing to do with it unless that behavior has a direct impact on the QMS. If personnel are nonchalant but demonstrate knowledge & conformity to the applicable QMS processes & standards, to document this would be a preference of the auditor and in essence reflect a bias (personal opinion) of the auditor. That's missing the cue, I may like brown gravy, you may like white gravy, as long as their is gravy that lives up to the requirements laid forth everything else is trivial.

Understood your point but I guess that what Maheswari experienced during
an internal audit was a "sort" of negative approach to the internal audit by the auditee people/owner.
Probably Maheswari could clearly tell us say what these behaviours were, otherwise we could only interpret.
I guess ( my assumption) that he noted and had evidence of not professional behaviour towards the internal auditor .Mr Maheswari , correct me if I was wrong.
For example, they could have said something like that in the internal audit: " We received many customer audit in our process in the past and they found nothing...etc..." or " We have other priorities today and so we cannot loose our time"...etc...
In my opinion, if so, these behaviours should be reported in the notes and to the attention of the management. Sometimes , if the internal auditor does not see collaboration, he/she can interrupt the internal audit, motivating the decision and alerting the committent of the internal audit.

 

[pcomer]

I suppose one can take the view that an employee who treats an audit casually can also be indifferent to the quality system as a whole. However evidence of this needs to be gathered and reviewed before reporting it to management. A nervous auditee may also appear to be casual by the auditor. I would suggest that evidence of breaches to the standard be reported rather than the casual approach of the auditee.

 

[20130523]

Re: Internal Audit observation

I have some comments, because I disagree with the approach of expecting everyone to have a positive attitude and to know the QMS.

Someone in the organization must be the quality Champion. Whether it is a QA Manager, a Management Representative, or a Director; someone is taking the daily responsibility of owning the QMS. That person receives Top Management Support and Backing. So, this champion, or QMS Manager/Leader, is responsible for enthusiasm of the quality system and creating a culture that is cohesive with the Organizations Mission, Vision and Values.

I am surprised to see comments about attitude during an internal audit. And Internal Audit is supposed to be a way to improve your system. A third Party Audit should be searching for compliance, and Internal Audit should be searching for non-compliance and areas for improvement. But this needs to be in a productive manner, as no one wants to be told how to do their job.

I tell my auditees that I PREFER to find errors, because then we can create a corrective action plan, and they give me fodder for the real audit, which shows our auditor our system works (and truth be told, they don't dig too much deeper when they see it works!)

I wish you the best of luck, as it sounds as if you may be attempting to govern the iron fist of ISO and/or Quality. Just a heads up, that Iron Fists usually fail.

 

[SteelMaiden]

I think these posts show just how subective the term casual can be. As an auditor, it is our job to report on objective information. Here we see that casual has been defined by individuals to show uncaring, confidence, nervousness and every other human condition. I think that pretty much shows that reporting that employees acted casually is not going to be received as an objective observation and so should be better defined if it is going to be reported to management.

 

[Brunetta]

Re: Internal Audit observation

I am surprised to see comments about attitude during an internal audit. And Internal Audit is supposed to be a way to improve your system. A third Party Audit should be searching for compliance, and Internal Audit should be searching for non-compliance and areas for improvement. But this needs to be in a productive manner, as no one wants to be told how to do their job.

I tell my auditees that I PREFER to find errors, because then we can create a corrective action plan, and they give me fodder for the real audit, which shows our auditor our system works (and truth be told, they don't dig too much deeper when they see it works!)

PLEASE! Audits should NOT be a search for noncompliance.
Auditors are not kwality kops and taking this approach does a disservice to the organization!

Internal auditors working within an internal audit program should be reviewing processes to determine whether the quality management system conforms and is effective.

I cannot stress this enough, if you look for trouble...you will find it (even if it is nonsense) and the end result is nonsense findings of nonconformance and an an ensuing attitude of auditing as being a non value added exercise.

Audit findings can be both positive and negative, and if your audit report is not providing both you are not giving the customer of the audit (top management) information they need.

Jumping off my soapbox now.