Internal Audit Observation - Disinterested Auditees

[20130523]

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.

Good Call!

 

[20130523]

Re: Internal Audit observation

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.

Disagree.

Sorry, but with the right attitude, everything is room for improvement. Just becasue some people cannot do it successfully, does not mean that it cannot be done.

Further comments being withheld. <with a smile, of course.>

 

[qusys]

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.

In intrepreted "casual " as : "Not serious or thorough; superficial: a casual inspection" according to one of definitions of Thesaurus English dictionary

 

[Jason PCSwitches]

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.

Sorry, wrong approach. Your going into the game with expectations. That's your fallacy. You should audit with an open & objective mind, not with a mentality to headhunt, which by your post suggest that's' your prerogative. It's counter-productive. If there is a problem, identify it and have it corrected, but don't go into it with the mentality of a "witch-hunt". Your only going to receive negativism in it's place. Remember, we are not auditing people (to some degree) we are auditing processes!!

Internal audits should support the development of the system; KEY WORD (DEVELOPMENT). No company, AQ system etc. is perfect. If that was so most of us here would be out of a job!!

Don't go headhunting, go in with a mindset of improvement. As grandma said: "You'll catch more fly's with honey than with vinegar"!

Not pickin on you, you are on the right path, just relax your preferences a bit and be open minded.

 

[JaneB]

Casually is a sign of that person's negative approach to Management System. Do you feel it help for continual improvement?

I think 'casual' is a rather subjective term, and thus heading into dangerous waters, especially in audit.

Also, I wonder if what is considered 'acceptable' (or casual) behaviour differs in various cultures. Certainly in western culture, casual behaviour during an audit isn't necessarily a bad thing at all.

But I'd much rather you provided specific examples of what you are calling 'casual behaviour'. And as someone already said, if I received an audit report denigrating people for behaving 'casually', I'd probably think that reflected badly on the auditor! Tell me someone ignored safety instructions (say), or didn't file records in the required order/place/sequence, and I'll behave differently.

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.

Positive, again, is a subjective term. What - specifically - is or are the behaviours that caused you concern? In what circumstances? What effect or results did they have? Is there a risk? If so, what's the risk? And not just a 'oh, they might not be interested in improvement'. All too vague for me.

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.

Strongly agree.

I for one tread very very carefully before I start commenting on people's attitudes or behaviour. If I ever do have to comment negatively on them, I take care to report facts only - ie, objective reporting.
I would never accept from any auditor submitting a report to me a comment about 'casual behaviour' nor even 'negative attitude'. Give me the facts, please, not a subjective opinion.

 

[20130523]

Re: Internal Audit observation

It has been a while.. I just read some of the replies!

I think the difference in my reply, from others, is Internal Auditing completed by a company employee compared to internal auditing completed by someone outside of the company, or a consultant, or a person who has performed most internal audits as a consultant.

I have seen this many times before where an auditor does a disservice to the company by being afraid of "consulting" in an audit report. I always walk into an internal audit with the attitude of "show me how to do your job", then compare it to the written SOPs, then look to the standards for possible gaps or misinterpretations in the language.

And, by the way, looking for opportunities for improvement is very, very, very different from looking for nonconformance. I write all of my audit reports with 3 fields: 1. Conformance examples, 2. Nonconformance examples, 3. Auditor's opinion. (The third category is reviewed by me very carefully; while I appreciate all comments from the auditors, some I may choose to omit from the final report and keep to myself.)

I know, selfish right....

Also, this discussion is such a good reminder about how each business model is different, and there are a million and one ways to complete something. (My personal audits do not include production, and I'm a low level Class 1, so I can focus more on process improvements than many can). My personal approach is more enticing to a company culture, my goal is to have everyone participate in Quality, and create a cultural appreciation for the value of the quality system, and I am quite good at it. And... just for the record... I now have people who can't wait for their next internal audit! So while you may or may not like my approach, or it may not work for all, it accomplishes what I need it to, quite successfully!

And hey, Quality can be fun, Smile more, the angry faces are sooo... well, serious.

 

[Mikishots]

Re: Internal Audit observation

"Casually is a sign of that person's negative approach to Management System."

I'm hoping that this is a typo. If it isn't, this is an amazing and misguided assumption; I can't see how anyone could come to a conclusion like this.

You must be objective. You cannot have assumptions before or during the audit. If you want to reprot something, you'd better have objective evidence for it.

 

[LUV-d-4UM]

Re: Internal Audit observation

I pay attention to the behaviour of the auditee but until I can relate it to any activity that impacts the process control I give them the benefit of the doubt. They are nervous and some of them donot project their behaviour very well. I look for something else. Thank you.