Steven,
When you set out to do something, it's always a good idea to consider why you are doing it. In fact, it's better to have identified a need and then looked at the optional ways of achieving it.
What is your objective? To do a survey? or to find out how good your audit is?
Now I think there are a number of ways to find out how good your audit is. The best is to judge the effectiveness of the audit by identifying objective improvement data, if that is possible. The next, I'd say, is at the audit closing meeting, where you can hear and see the response of your auditee management team. Do they mean it when they thank you? Or are they just showing relief it's all over for another couple of months?
You can ask them at the meeting, when you have the most leverage - It helps if you make sure their boss or their bosses boss is there. You can ask them to gather the concerns and positive points of their people who were audited.
But I would keep individuals and personalities out of it. Stick to judging only the process, as we auditors do, and avoid threatening or upsetting the audit team.
The method of feedback you propose seems to come from operator or supervisor level. For reasons given in responses above, eg Dusty says 'don't consult'(if you do you take responsibilty for all the trouble that happens in future). 'The auditees don't know the standard'. 'Your auditors knowledge of the standard is limited and when questioned will show cracks' (like the rest of us).
My main concern is that you may be storing up a heap of trouble and getting little in return;
No-one likes being reviewed, least of all by someone neither qualified, nor in a position of authority to do so. Your auditors are going to feel threatened every time they audit. Already they feel under pressure to produce results (ie NCs), now every action and word will be judged. The auditees will have being given a weapon to fight back.
Will the auditors avoid audits in future? Not volunteer? Look for another job?
Will they respond by being aggressive? or too lenient? Avoid troublesome areas? Go back and get revenge next time?
Will the auditees settle old scores? Respond to NCs by arguing and turning the tables on the auditor by pointing out their weaknesses? Will they finish up insulting each other and throwing eggs?
Will your superiors see all this stuff in the reports and decide that you would be better off doing something else? maybe somewhere else?
I don't like it. Sounds like a lot of hassle, even a minefield, and even if you guide it wisely and your organisation is the sort of place where it can be used, I see no obvious gains to come from it.
Certainly look for feeback but don't lose the upper hand. Be prepared to defend your area against attack if it is seen as the opportunity to do so, after all, it's your job to make the decisions and, when you're interfering in other people's areas, they'll soon enough put you down if the opportunity arises. Work closely with them. Don't put questions in their mouths and doubts in everyone's heads. Tell them how good your team is and help them understand how their input might make it even better.
rgds,
John C
