Informational Internal Audits - Wear multiple hats what can and can't I audit (so I'm not auditing my own work)

[Jim Wynne]

As one can read, ISO 19011 throws the words "if practicable" (keep in mind practicable does not mean practical). So, it seems to me that what is happening out there is: when dealing with small businesses, some people automatically infer that internal auditors CAN BE objective and impartial. But they refuse to answer a very simple question: HOW CAN ANYONE KNOW IF THE INTERNAL AUDITOR WILL BE OBJECTIVE AND IMPARTIAL WHEN AUDITING THEIR OWN WORK? HOW?

And, as I warned in my previous posts, the moment you allow for small business internal auditors to audit their own work, because they can be objective and impartial, YOU WILL have to allow the same for ANY business. There can be no differentiation.

In this case, the words "practicable" and "practical" are interchangeable. A better word to use would be "feasible."

 

[AndyN]

In this case, the words "practicable" and "practical" are interchangeable. A better word to use would be "feasible."

Exactly, Jim.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

And it is hugely telling that people avoid answering the FUNDAMENTAL questions in this issue:

How can you be independent of the work you performed?

How can anyone know if an internal auditor will be impartial and objective when auditing his/her own work?

 

[AndyN]

And it is hugely telling that people avoid answering the FUNDAMENTAL questions in this issue:

How can you be independent of the work you performed?

How can anyone know if an internal auditor will be impartial and objective when auditing his/her own work?

The same can be leveled at 3rd Party auditors...

 

[Golfman25]

And it is hugely telling that people avoid answering the FUNDAMENTAL questions in this issue:

How can you be independent of the work you performed?

How can anyone know if an internal auditor will be impartial and objective when auditing his/her own work?

Actually many people are impartial and objective. Take athletes for example -- they are always evaluating themselves, look at tape, etc., finding ways to get better. Company owners and entrepreneurs frequently are -- they have nobody doing reviews on them. They have to self evaluate everything they do.

But, yes many are not as well. However, how do we know someone else in the company will be "impartial and objective" when auditing another person's work? Heck they could have a secret relationship on the side.

At the end of the day, the proof is in the work that is done. What did the audit find? Why or why not? How was the information presented? Etc.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Actually many people are impartial and objective. Take athletes for example -- they are always evaluating themselves, look at tape, etc., finding ways to get better. Company owners and entrepreneurs frequently are -- they have nobody doing reviews on them. They have to self evaluate everything they do.

I don't understand the apples and cathedrals comparison here; one is trying to find ways to improve his/her own performance for personal gain. The other is work done to assess if EXECUTED work WAS done in accordance with specified criteria. The two situations are totally different.

At the end of the day, the proof is in the work that is done. What did the audit find? Why or why not? How was the information presented? Etc.

Let's explore your scenario:

1. Let's assume someone audit his/her own work and finds NOTHING negative to report (the most likely scenario). How can anyone tell if the audit was well conducted, impartial and objective? How can anyone tell it was a good audit?

2. Let's assume the auditor audits his/her own work and find a number of "nonconformities" (very unlikely). Now someone must ask: How can I trust this person, as an employee, if s/he found problems with their own work? If they goofed up then, chances are, they will goof up again....

 

[AndyN]

I don't understand the apples and cathedrals comparison here;

Of course you don't Sidney. Let me phrase it this way. When in your career did you do internal audits to ISO 9001 requirements?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

You know, I do work for an ISO 9001 certified organization. Do you? And please don't ask me questions until you attempt to answer the ones I posed in this thread a few times.

Good luck.

 

[AndyN]

I have no idea what you do nor whom you work for. I believe you worked for DNV Registrars in a business development capacity. That's all I know. Hence why I asked. If you thought I paid more attention to your career, I missed your point, as I was paying attention to mine.

 

[Mike S.]

The standard writers have "clarified" plenty of times. In ISO 19011 and ISO/TS 9002, for example.

No, I think the clarification should be in ISO9001 as a shall if they want it that way, not in other, separate "guidance documents" full of "should". Guidelines are not requirements. Should is not equal to shall. If it is truly a requirement, make it a "shall" is ISO9001 itself. JMO