Is internal auditing viewed as an improvement tool or?

[WALLACE]

I witnessed an audit a couple of days ago that had an aire of continuous improvement about it.
I asked the business manager, " How do you view and recieve your scheduled audits", she answered, "We view them as a continuous improvement tool".
Well, I have to admit, I haven't heard that too often.
This question goes out to the group (As Kevin would say).
Is the internal auditing process viewed as an improvement tool or, a mere requirement of the standard?
Wallace.

 

[Randy]

Depends on organizational culture and the history of the audit process in it.

If the focus is on identification of nonconformance (Negative impact) the answer in the long run will be "NO".

If the focus is on identifying opportunities for improvement and preventive actions (Positive impact) then the "YES" will be realized.

 

[Rob Nix]

IMO, Most audits should be improvement oriented, with the only exception being 3rd party registration/surveillance audits. Third party audits are only for confirming whether a company conforms, or does not conform to, the standard; they do not tell you how (or how best) to establish conformity.

Outside consultants doing audits, or gap analysis, or whatever, should be valued added by providing improvement opportunities. Otherwise, it would be like playing 18 holes of golf with a golf pro, where he simply kept score for you, and nothing else.

Internal (process) audits should likewise be value added. Our company just recently added content to our internal audit in the form of suggestions and ideas from the interviewees on waste reduction and other lean principles. In other words, instead of asking "what are your inputs" or "how do you do [such and such]", we ask, "what inputs would help you be more effective" or "how would you like to accomplish [such and such] to make your job better". It's like a built in "lean ideas" or "suggestion" system. It's new yet, but I hope it works.

 

[WALLACE]

Audits as improvement tools

IMO, Most audits should be improvement oriented, with the only exception being 3rd party registration/surveillance audits. Third party audits are only for confirming whether a company conforms, or does not conform to, the standard; they do not tell you how (or how best) to establish conformity.
Outside consultants doing audits, or gap analysis, or whatever, should be valued added by providing improvement opportunities. Otherwise, it would be like playing 18 holes of golf with a golf pro, where he simply kept score for you, and nothing else.
Internal (process) audits should likewise be value added. Our company just recently added content to our internal audit in the form of suggestions and ideas from the interviewees on waste reduction and other lean principles. In other words, instead of asking "what are your inputs" or "how do you do [such and such]", we ask, "what inputs would help you be more effective" or "how would you like to accomplish [such and such] to make your job better". It's like a built in "lean ideas" or "suggestion" system. It's new yet, but I hope it works.

Rob,
I would say that, the results of a surveillance can indeed be used for system improvements, regardless of their party status.
In view of what you said regarding outside consultants, would you say that outside consultants add value to a business system?
I like your idea of questioning along the lines of the interrogatives approach, this certainly opens up an audit for potential improvement opportunities.
Wallace.

 

[Randy]

Rob where do you get off with your line of thought there old buddy? All audits, whether internal, external or upside down-ternal should add value. Part of the LA course materials that I present point out that the audit process must take a pro-active, value added approach. As a 3rd party auditor my focus is primarily on verifying conformance and providing opportunities for improvement that I observe/recognize. The least thing I do is dwell on deviation/nonconformance. The focus is on the audit providing worth or value to the auditee through the verification of conformance.

 

[Tom W]

Jumping into this discussion I would like to add this. Every opening meeting includes the following statement being read;
"Specialty Heat Treating utilizes this audit process to assist in the continual improvement of the quality system and the ability to acheive the Quality Policy. This process is a proactive improvement method and should be considered that way by both the auditor and the auditee. It is not a tool to find problems or point fingers. Auditors have been trained and entrusted with the responsibility for conducting a comprehensive and thorough audit in a professional and ethical manner."

It continues on with more but I think you get the point of how I (we) look at Internal audits.

 

[Randy]

YEP!!!!!

 

[Rob Nix]

Easy there; I get a little nervous when I see pictures of two guys (Randy and Tom) in camouflage and helmets coming at me.

I've been batted around every which way by this issue in the last few years. When I first started dealing with 3rd party registrations I was told that an auditor cannot do consulting (which, I was told, was making any recommendations on how to correct or improve a situation) - this was the reason Perry Johnson split into PJR and PJI. Then they introduced the OFI (opportunity for improvement) which indicated they could.

Then, when I became a certified QS-9000 lead auditor, the instructor again reiterated that our purpose is to establish conformity, and nothing else. I asked, "so, are we to look only for evidence of non-conformity?". He said no, we should keep looking for evidence of conformity, and if none can be found (or gaps are found), then a NC is written. My experience with many third party auditors does indeed indicate that they normally make suggestions for improvements, sometimes even pointing out how some other companies do things; which can be a little dicey if the other company is a competitor.

So, to make a short story long, I'll agree with you guys on this, if you can define the line that separates "consulting" with "continual improvment recommendations".

 

[db]

I've been batted around every which way by this issue in the last few years. When I first started dealing with 3rd party registrations I was told that an auditor cannot do consulting (which, I was told, was making any recommendations on how to correct or improve a situation) - this was the reason Perry Johnson split into PJR and PJI.

One way that 3rd party audits can be value added is when the auditor can show the cost related to a nonconformance. As my buddy Doug would say: "Show me the so what." If a company addresses a nonconformance because the auditor says it is nonconforming, they miss the point. If they address it because they can see the "intent/why" of the nonconformance, and how the nonconformance impacts the organization, then they can understand it better. Written an nonconformannce becauz fo spelin or gramer ain't hardly goin ta hafe the same affect, as a nonconformance which impacts sales, or customer satisfaction.

 

[Wes Bucey]

One way that 3rd party audits can be value added is when the auditor can show the cost related to a nonconformance. As my buddy Doug would say: "Show me the so what." If a company addresses a nonconformance because the auditor says it is nonconforming, they miss the point. If they address it because they can see the "intent/why" of the nonconformance, and how the nonconformance impacts the organization, then they can understand it better. Written an nonconformannce becauz fo spelin or gramer ain't hardly goin ta hafe the same affect, as a nonconformance which impacts sales, or customer satisfaction.

I certainly agree with what you say, db. However, how do you address the mindset of downstream players in the little drama (customer organizations) who attach more importance to "passing" an audit than on the continued flow of good quality product to their production floors?