Outsourcing Internal Quality Auditing functions

[Richard Pike]

Hello Richard:

I think you missed my point. I was not comparing the value of internal audit to any other part of an organization.

I was questioning the theory behind the original question. I perceived the theory to be, a process is not effective, and instead of improving it, we should outsource it. Or at least the question seemed to imply that maybe the best decision is to outsource instead of improve.

If we accept this approach and toss out the "continual improvement" concept, what else should we toss out (outsource) because it does not meet our needs?

Sorry I was not attempting to be-little your position.

Perhaps outsourcing initially and then learning from that resource to subsequently improve.

It may be interesting to consider what is the Core Business of the organization, it certainly is not auditing?

A trend in industry is to outsource functions that are not part of the core business!

We now have to separate those objections that mat be trying to protect their own functions and those that are trying to improve the business - but that is another game!

 

[AndyN]

Surely, internal auditors shouldn't be 'covering clauses'..?

I'll ask this one again. IMHO we've got the story wrong, when we talk about internal auditors auditing clauses....especially 5 & 6...

 

[db]

I'll ask this one again. IMHO we've got the story wrong, when we talk about internal auditors auditing clauses....especially 5 & 6...

If I may... I think the poster was commenting on any process which deals with upper management, not specifically clauses. The point was, how can an employee effectively and impartially audit the person who can quickly say "YOU"RE FIRED!!!!"? I think the point is a good one. However, we can also apply the same logic to outsourced audits (including 3rd party).

I perform internal audits for some of my clients. But in every case, I work for top management and it is their option to allow me to come back. So, can I be truly objective? Or do I have to make sure my audits don't rock the boat enough to throw me out. The same type of pressures exists for external auditors as internal ones.

 

[Jen Kirley]

It seems to me that if management is going to, as the saying goes shoot the piano player, it's my view that the employment arrangement isn't the source of system ineffectiveness.

Now if the employee auditor gets fired because of poor communication skills, lack of teamwork etc., these are competency issues and again the employment model isn't the issue because such problems can also occur with contracted auditors.

So far I have not seen a solid argument for greater effectiveness in a contracted internal auditor - quite the opposite in fact, as I may "get a whiff" of something and pull it into a later audit of that area. I can do this based on my constant exposure to the system dynamics and day to day events. The contracted auditor is likely to be missing this unless he/she is a full time contractor.

Of course my views are my own, and admittedly biased because I very much enjoy and appreciate being employed with benefits, and a member of the organization I am assessing for effectiveness.

 

[AndyN]

Let us go deep into the Standards-it expects Internal Auditing to cover the requirements of the Standards- that is to cover all the Clauses. A simple question is whether the "employee" auditors can effectively cover the Clause numbers 5 and 6 , which deals mainly with the Top Management's commitments. While the Product/service realization clause-7, as well as Documentation clause 4, could be well covered, Clause 8 could only be covered partially, since the Auditors themselves would not understood the impact of certain deviations on the product Quality and Customer satisfaction.

I'm not reading much about 'process' here. Much of the requirements of clauses 5 and 6 can/should be tackled when other processes are being audited, when planning and using a 'process approach.

For the sake of many other readers, I'm trying to help them understand that internal auditors shouldn't be (exclusively) auditing to the ISO requirements - which is often what they leave a course learning to do, and we see questions regarding same, on here all the time.

You're a competent, experienced auditor Dave, so my comments were for others, not so well versed in this.

 

[db]

You're a competent, experienced auditor Dave, so my comments were for others, not so well versed in this.

Careful, there Andy.... I have a reputation to uphold

 

[vanputten]

"It may be interesting to consider what is the Core Business of the organization, it certainly is not auditing?

A trend in industry is to outsource functions that are not part of the core business! "

hello Richard:

That may be. There may be a trend in industry.

I was trying to drive the conversation back to the latent issues within the original posting. I am trying to steer the thread back to the original question and some possible issues with the original question.

I am trying to have a discussion on the underlying theory of the initial question. I am not trying to discuss what is common place or what is possible.

The original question implied that if a process is not effective, we should consider outsource it.