Tips and Ideas for Working with Auditors

[Helmut Jilling]

... It seems to me that if they wanted absolutely no specific advice being given, they would have said "...development, implementation or improvement..."

I have been witness audited at least seven or eight times, in all the main standards (TS, ISO, QS, ISO 14001). I gave plenty of answers to questions, tried to keep it relatively general, tried not to give advice, and never had a finding on it. Clients benefited and the auditors accepted it.

I don't want to make a client do it exactly the way I would do something, I want them to do it their way. I learned here on Elsmar that is a much better way. I am happy to make sure clients understand what the standards require, so they are in a better position to determine the best way.

 

[AndyN]

Wow!

You're right about this. I've audited folks that were intimidated to the point of being a clam because of their past experiences and I don't really understand that. I like people to ask questions and maybe even help keep me on track by challenging me. I don't know how many of the folks I've interviewed are here (in the Cove) but I believe they'd back me up on that. I've found that looking at items of contention from their point of view has had positive results and turned into a win-win.

Wanna communicate with me? Be honest to yourself and to me, I'm not the enemy, and I'm successful only when you are.

If you don't agree, tell me and we'll re-visit the problem. I'm on your clock/dime, not mine.

You need clarification? Clarification isn't a problem, telling you "how" is, so please don't expect that. I'll show you exactly what is required from the standard/document, not from my interpretation, and I'll use the whole standard/document, not just a piece of it.

We'll see where this Thread goes..........

Good points, Randy. The key is freedom of communication. I have difficulty with those organizations who prepare their personnel with 'audit survival tips' which often builds an auditor's suspicion that things are being 'hidden' - since the flow of information about their process/responsibilities etc. becomes 'stilted' - like that 'clam' you talked of. I have seen situations where those 'tips' were posted around the place - not obviously - just because people couldn't remember what they should say etc. How's that for sending a message to an auditor - "you're gonna have to work for this one.....!"

My experience and strategy is that people should be comfortable talking about their process/work etc. If they can't, management have a problem anyway, let alone passing an audit. My tack has been always 'overwhelm' the auditor with your knowledge and confidence in what you do! Don't be cagey' about answering, take control and blow them away with how things are going. Anything else will be a game and set a poor tone for the audit......

 

[Randy]

I have difficulty with those organizations who prepare their personnel with 'audit survival tips' which often builds an auditor's suspicion that things are being 'hidden' - since the flow of information about their process/responsibilities etc. becomes 'stilted' - like that 'clam' you talked of. I have seen situations where those 'tips' were posted around the place - not obviously - just because people couldn't remember what they should say etc. How's that for sending a message to an auditor - "you're gonna have to work for this one.....!"

I've actually asked folks "What did they tell you not to talk about?" and have had that question answered. Many times the result is very similar to Art Linkletter and "Kid's Say the Darndest Things" In the background I can hear the groans and "Oh S**t"

 

[TSRao]

I think the best thing auditees can do for themselves is to have clear expectations about the purpose of the audit and auditor behavior and make those expectations known to the auditor and CB.

Here are a few:

Treat our people and organization with respect or expect to be shown the door.

The purpose of the audit is to assess whether the system complies with the standard. It is not to get help running the business.

The system may or may not be convenient to audit. If it is, great. If not, do the job you are being paid to do anyway.

The auditee gets the benefit of the doubt.

The auditor bears the burden of proof.

Document your OFI's.

If there's a nonconformance, write it. Otherwise keep your critical comments to yourself.

"Objective evidence" does not necessarily mean a documented record.

Don't pretend that things you like to see are required by the standard.

Take the time to familiarize yourself with the system. Read some of the flippin' documentation.

Ask how things are done, rather than making assumptions.

Just Remember three points:

1) Answer to the question brief and straight

2) Best foot forward

3) Don't argue even you are right, try to convince

Regards

T S Rao

 

[C Emmons]

I do have a standard presentation that is used during meetings that communicates common questions asked by an auditor. I tell people to be honest and direct and just answer the questions.

I have been guilty of communicating "dont try to answer a question that has not been asked - only because I have seen employees try to talk about areas they are not responsible for and it can create a nightmare. I am a fence rider on this issue

 

[CliffK]

My experience and strategy is that people should be comfortable talking about their process/work etc. If they can't, management have a problem anyway, let alone passing an audit. My tack has been always 'overwhelm' the auditor with your knowledge and confidence in what you do! Don't be cagey' about answering, take control and blow them away with how things are going. Anything else will be a game and set a poor tone for the audit......

Andy,
Here's what I usually tell folks about openness.
1. Answer all the questions honestly and fully. Don't try to fool the auditor and don't try to hide things.
2. Let the auditor see whatever records he asks to see (possible exception: sensitive personnel records and the like)
3. Don't volunteer information.
4. Don't speculate about areas/processes/things that you don't know about.

I suppose point 3 might cause some people to take the "clam up" approach, but that's not the intent. I believe the auditor should be free to guide the discussion and able to ask appropriate questions as well.

How many times have you had to say, "That's very interesting, but what I really want to know about is <something else>"

On the other hand, I really like Randy's question.

 

[BradM]

I've actually asked folks "What did they tell you not to talk about?" and have had that question answered. Many times the result is very similar to Art Linkletter and "Kid's Say the Darndest Things" In the background I can hear the groans and "Oh S**t"

And you got to the other half of this topic (IMHO). There is a duality here that should be addressed. One is the individual working with the auditor. The other, is how the individual has been instructed to work with the auditor by their supervisor, or someone else in the organization.

 

[AndyN]

Good points Cliff.

Since we're basically speaking of the role of the CB auditor, my experience is that since they don't have/take time to review sufficient information about the businesses processes etc., before launching into interviews, they can only ask somewhat vague questions - or sometimes very, very specific ones which relate to their prior experience of system weaknesses.

Since this first 'vague' line of inquiry leads to people trying to 'fill in' as a way to get to a point of understanding of what's being sought by the auditor, it is both frustrating and time consuming for the auditee. Set against a background of 'only answer the bit you're responsible for' increases tension in an already 'high anxiety' situation! I'm sure we all know where things can and do go from there.

That's why I advocate the auditee being coached, before hand, to take control of the audit, by leading off with a clear explanation of the process, their responsibilities, what to do when things aren't 'quality' etc.

This avoids the need to 'fill in' as a way to get the auditor comfortable with what they're wanting to hear and reduces the stress on both parties. Indeed, after using this technique numerous times, I've seen CB auditors walking away very pleased with what they'd seen and heard (it didn't involve any hard work to pry out information) and reported the results very favourably to management........

 

[CliffK]

Andy

You raise an interesting point about document review. It seems like the CB auditors don't do that anymore. I wonder why.

I see your point about providing information. I think the perfect audit question begins with the words, "Please tell me about <whatever>..." This invites the interviewee to give the response you're talking about.

 

[somerqc]

My auditor is pretty good about maintaining the line. However, like Cliff said - there was no document review prior to the audit so the entire first day was very vague questions.

I basically tell the people to stick to what you are directly involved in. If you are not involved, simply tell the auditor that you are aware of the process but generally not directly involved. It seems to work. Our auditor seems to be pretty good at realizing when he has reached the end of a person's responsibilities as well.

That's my

John