K
I've been reading this thread on reporting audit findings in which Wes states:
[FONT="]"My experience has been that many internal auditors [and their bosses] believe the internal audit is a police action and so feel that they need to play "GOTCHA" and issue NC instead of making suggestions for mistake proofing a process.[/FONT]"
I take Wes's point and I would like to get away from the 'quality cop' image and move towards the 'helper' image. In previous organisations it has been common to use an audit report form which requires the owner of the process, or someone like that, to sign the audit report. I suspect this may exacerbate the problem Wes alludes to, so before doing things differently; I'd like to know if there are any reasons why its a good idea to get the process owner, or someone like that, to sign an internal audit report.
I know 9001 makes no mention of this so technically its not required.
thanks
[FONT="]"My experience has been that many internal auditors [and their bosses] believe the internal audit is a police action and so feel that they need to play "GOTCHA" and issue NC instead of making suggestions for mistake proofing a process.[/FONT]"
I take Wes's point and I would like to get away from the 'quality cop' image and move towards the 'helper' image. In previous organisations it has been common to use an audit report form which requires the owner of the process, or someone like that, to sign the audit report. I suspect this may exacerbate the problem Wes alludes to, so before doing things differently; I'd like to know if there are any reasons why its a good idea to get the process owner, or someone like that, to sign an internal audit report.
I know 9001 makes no mention of this so technically its not required.
thanks
Last edited by a moderator:
