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

[Ed Panek]

13 people. We have two people in QA RA

Its also possible to audit the audit. Have a second person review your work while you justify your results.

 

[Randy]

Andy,
What's your bottom line on this. Can you do an internal audit on a process that you are responsible for ? For example can the Metrologist audit the calibration process, can the QC Manager audit the quality assurance process. Let's give. Ed some straight answers. I say NO to my two examples any audit results from the two audits would be subject to potential bias.

Audit results are always subject to potential bias regardless of who the auditor is and independence doesn't guarantee diddly do.

 

[Mike S.]

One can go to the ISO OBP, search the definition of the term audit, filter under the TC176 and scroll down to see the whole entry:

View attachment 25433​

Sidney,

You lean heavily on ISO9000. But as someone else said, note 1 refers audit of "an object" and note 3, which is specifically referring to internal audits, says "Independence can be demonstrated by the freedom from responsibility for the activity being audited."

It says "can". Not does. Not shall. Can. Therefore it seems to me there is not a requirement for freedom from responsibility for the activity being audited on an internal audit.

 

[insect warfare]

In this situation, the organization might have the internal auditor work with a peer, or have the results reviewed by a peer or a manager, to ensure results are impartial.

You raise another good point here that seems to have been largely overlooked throughout this thread. Not only can a well-planned peer review help ensure audit objectivity in the absence of additional auditors, but it is also good policy for organizations who perform any type of risk analysis in the workplace where 1) resources are tight and 2) repeatable, reproducible results are highly valued. It always comes back to good planning....

Brian

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Sidney, You lean heavily on ISO9000.

Not sure what you mean by "lean heavily". My goal here is to substantiate my opinion on why "people can audit their own work" is against the requirements of ISO 9001, sound quality management principles, counterproductive and against risk based thinking. In this thread alone, I posted and hyperlinked a good number of associated and relevant documents. For those who think : if it is not in the (9001) standard, I don't care, sorry for bursting the bubble.

If people still believe that "people can audit their own work", while complying with ISO 9001, I don't give a rat's ass. Go for it and just do it. Quality system management, ISO 9001 implementation and auditing has been going on a downward spiral for a long time. People want loopholes, shortcuts, templates, etc...

I will remain on the side of standards and certifications as confidence-building components, assuring business in it's supply chain risks.

I spent a lot of time and effort on this thread, knowing full well that some people will never be convinced by my arguments, but I see my participation in The Cove as my little legacy and possible influence to the people involved in writing standards (most of them are shy voyeurs here) that they need to improve the clarity of their products.

 

[Ninja]

FWIW, Sidney...and as many times as you and I have disagreed dramatically...I value your input and willingness to stand up.

I would, however, tweak your words a little to make them more toward what I believe...

"My goal here is to substantiate my opinion on why "people can audit their own work" is against the intent of ISO 9001, sound quality management principles, counterproductive and against risk based thinking. "

Is this a fair tweak?

 

[Mike S.]

I spent a lot of time and effort on this thread, knowing full well that some people will never be convinced by my arguments, but I see my participation in The Cove as my little legacy and possible influence to the people involved in writing standards (most of them are shy voyeurs here) that they need to improve the clarity of their products.

That clarity thing we can agree on.

But you did not refute the point I made.

Not everyone who disagrees with your position wants a "loophole". Some of us just don't want outside auditors creating new requirements out of thin air.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Not everyone who disagrees with your position wants a "loophole".

Really? So, please go right ahead and write the paper The wisdom and benefits of self audits. I would love to read it.

 

[Mike S.]

Really? So, please go right ahead and write the paper The wisdom and benefits of self audits. I would love to read it.

No apparently you are the arbiter of all wisdom and mere mortals can't compete with your intellect.

 

[Marc]

Thank you.​