It is not in the supporting evidence (the listing of facts) where there may be a difference of opinion it may be in the conclusion when you choose to use the third form (#3) of a finding statement proposed in the book... A subjective cause and effect statement, showing the problem and its business consequences.
Previously I listed three forms of finding statements proposed by the source I cited to include an Objective Finding Statement. The source I cited states that this type of form of finding statement is generally used when management decides it wants more of an inspection/compliance audit and they will determine the severity and if the situation warrants attention/action. We decided that our CB already provides this service for us and if we were required to perform internal audits we would audit for continual improvement as well as compliance.
Therefore our findings are of the latter option (#3) a subjective cause and effect statement, showing the problem and its business consequences...followed by supporting evidence uncovered during the audit.
Our auditors and audittees construct and record their conclusion of the facts (problem/finding statement) and that conclusion illustrating the problem and its business consequences may or may not differ from the auditor. In both cases those conclusions must be supported by factual evidence. In our experience, when the rare occassions of process owner indigestion have occurred we find that they pertain to the degree of business consequences. Since in our program the recording of findings is not at the end of our audit it engenders a discussion between our auditors and audittees.
We have found that by constructing our internal audit program this way we have a partnership based audit environment rather than a qwality cop environment. This is why our findings are presented during the audit not at the conclusion of the audit. By allowing the audittees to submit their evidence supported conclusions and having an dialogue everyone benefits.
Our internal audit program has been highlighted by our CB as "in-depth and thorough" and we have had quite a few breakthrough improvements in efficiencies so the consensus, from our organization, is that this works for us.
Your mileage may vary.
Previously I listed three forms of finding statements proposed by the source I cited to include an Objective Finding Statement. The source I cited states that this type of form of finding statement is generally used when management decides it wants more of an inspection/compliance audit and they will determine the severity and if the situation warrants attention/action. We decided that our CB already provides this service for us and if we were required to perform internal audits we would audit for continual improvement as well as compliance.
Therefore our findings are of the latter option (#3) a subjective cause and effect statement, showing the problem and its business consequences...followed by supporting evidence uncovered during the audit.
Our auditors and audittees construct and record their conclusion of the facts (problem/finding statement) and that conclusion illustrating the problem and its business consequences may or may not differ from the auditor. In both cases those conclusions must be supported by factual evidence. In our experience, when the rare occassions of process owner indigestion have occurred we find that they pertain to the degree of business consequences. Since in our program the recording of findings is not at the end of our audit it engenders a discussion between our auditors and audittees.
We have found that by constructing our internal audit program this way we have a partnership based audit environment rather than a qwality cop environment. This is why our findings are presented during the audit not at the conclusion of the audit. By allowing the audittees to submit their evidence supported conclusions and having an dialogue everyone benefits.
Our internal audit program has been highlighted by our CB as "in-depth and thorough" and we have had quite a few breakthrough improvements in efficiencies so the consensus, from our organization, is that this works for us.
Your mileage may vary.
I am sorry for not getting this but it seems to me that your internal audit is more like a negotiation.
This is what I am used to:
The system is the organization and the management system (part of which is documented) exists to help employees to determine and meet requirements.
Auditors working in partnership with the auditee representatives gather and report facts on how well the system does this.
Some of these facts (findings) are reported as positives to learn from.
Some of these findings indicate nonconformity where the system failed to help someone to meet a requirement.
If the employee has evidence to the contrary they show that evidence at that time or refer the auditor to their boss who may have evidence to the contrary.
The nonconformity statement comprises three parts of which at least A and B are agreed at the time of the audit usually with the management spokesperson (the boss in the area audited or the process owner):
- Requirement (from a management, resources/controls, contract or standard)
- Evidence (of the requirement not being fulfilled)
- Nature of the nonconformity (opposite of the requirement)
Corrective action and some breakthrough improvements follow with verifications of effectiveness. Some corrective action is complex and needs to involve a cross-functional team.
Indeed, the time for creativity and consensus is when optimizing the system so it does a better job of fulfilling requirements.
I do not understand the need for prolonged negotiation during audit:
- Perhaps the managers are not making themselves available during the audit?
- Perhaps earlier auditors audited people instead of the processes and system?
- Or are many improvement ideas delayed until the auditor turns up?
- ...or do you have an audit process that is truly innovative?



