Random Sampling vs. Thorough Review - Records to be Reviewed - Audit Finding

A

arios

But if not, why? Quite often there's just zero point in going back a long way: the company has moved on/changed/improved things, so auditing to then report the incredibly unuseful finding that 'you weren't following your brand new records retention procedure' 2 years ago provides what value?

Hi Jane,

I understand and agree with your concern for situations where there would not be value added with a finding like the one you wrote, and that's why I indicated the importance of the auditor's experience.
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
dQApprentice, I don't know why, but your posts are always full of superfluous HTML font and Verdana tags. I don't know why, but they're irritating, because I have to clear them out of the way in order to respond, which is time-consuming, so I'm getting less inclined to respond to your posts because of this. Any way you could get rid of them yourself?
You need to clear your browser's cache.
 
J

JaneB

You need to clear your browser's cache.

Thanks Jim, but I don't think this is the issue, as it's part of my regular routine. However, just to rule it out etc, I've done that.

Then I clicked Quote on each and every post (except mine) in this thread. I still get exactly the same result (with dqApp's posts, but not with anyone else). I'm wondering if it's because of the one extra /font close tag in the signature line (after the font change - and only one needed I think).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

JaneB

Hi Jane,
I understand and agree with your concern for situations where there would not be value added with a finding like the one you wrote, and that's why I indicated the importance of the auditor's experience.
And that's the part where I agreed with you :yes: :D

But I do think an auditor has... well, if not an obligation, then some kind of responsibility (implied or otherwise) to be able to explain what it is they are checking for or seeking, and why they are following a particular line of enquiry. (I am also quite willing to be patient if they say 'after these questions have been answered/not).

I think your wording of it being 'entirely up to the auditor' worried me a little - I'm thinking of the fortunately not too frequent occasions when I have come across the type of auditor who wouldn't explain anything and acted very arbitrarily and high-handedly. Apart from anything else, being able to provide some kind of explanation to auditees is good practice I think, if not polite behaviour. I am not saying that they have to get the auditee's approval (far from it!) - indeed, the auditee may not even like the line of enquiry, they may even disagree with it... but provided it's within the scope of the audit and the system, then at least giving some kind of reason behind it makes me feel reassured that the auditor does have good reasons for what they're doing (other than acting purely arbitrarily).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top Bottom