What to do when Auditee refuses to sign Audit Report

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
#81
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.
Brunetta,

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)
The auditor's conclusions are based on both types of findings and they are reported answer the questions posed by the objectives of the audit.

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:

  1. Perhaps the managers are not making themselves available during the audit?
  2. Perhaps earlier auditors audited people instead of the processes and system?
  3. Or are many improvement ideas delayed until the auditor turns up?
  4. ...or do you have an audit process that is truly innovative?
John
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
B

Brunetta

#82
Brunetta,

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)
The auditor's conclusions are based on both types of findings and they are reported answer the questions posed by the objectives of the audit.

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:

  1. Perhaps the managers are not making themselves available during the audit?
  2. Perhaps earlier auditors audited people instead of the processes and system?
  3. Or are many improvement ideas delayed until the auditor turns up?
  4. ...or do you have an audit process that is truly innovative?
John
John,
Its not a prolonged negotiation during audit...I am not sure where you are getting that impression.


To answer your assumptions/questions:
  1. Perhaps the managers are not making themselves available during the audit?
    No, managers are interviewed/observed in addition to personnel involved in the activities pertaining to the processes being reviewed
  2. Perhaps earlier auditors audited people instead of the processes and system?
    The program has been improved incrementally over time, but not for that reason.
  3. Or are many improvement ideas delayed until the auditor turns up?
    No, not really. Improvement ideas come from a variety of sources within our QMS our audit program happens to be one of them, but not the only source.
  4. ...or do you have an audit process that is truly innovative?
    I doubt that, but perhaps then again maybe we do? We audit for continual improvement (efficiency and effectiveness) in addition to compliance...is that really being innovative?
:topic:
Look, I am not saying that this is THE way to do auditing. I responded to this thread because I was reading a lot of statements that were stating that requiring signatures was a bad thing.

Since we do require signatures and allow the process owners the ability to comment if they so choose I thought sharing our experiences could contribute to the discussion. However... it appears I have derailed it.
 
D

Don Cameron

#83
Include a note in the report that the auditee refused to sign the report and the reasons (if known).
 
D

Don Cameron

#84
There is nothing wrong with having the process owner/department manager sign the audit report and provide commentary however I would not go below this organizational level when obtaining a signature.

If the Process Owner/ Department Manager are not available or unwilling to sign, just identify this in the report. You should also make it know to personnel signing the report that their signature does not imply agreement with the findings only that they were advised of the findings.
 
O

Obstacle3

#85
Great thread.

I am in the process of re-engineering our internal audit process to streamline it and reduce the need to have to obtain signatures (as it currently stands).

Audits are only conducted by myself (Manager Product Assurance) and my team member.

I am proposing that the audit report is reviewed by myself prior to sending to the process owner and top manager.

THere is a level of trust in my department even existing to perform this function nad given the factual approach is applied, I don't see the necessity in having process owners and auditees physically sign the report.

Does this seem like a practical approach?
 

Ajit Basrur

Staff member
Admin
#86
I do the same thing but before issuing the report, I clearly tell all the Majors and minors in the closing meeting to rule out any confusion later.

It should work fine :)
 

Big Jim

Super Moderator
#87
Great thread.

I am in the process of re-engineering our internal audit process to streamline it and reduce the need to have to obtain signatures (as it currently stands).

Audits are only conducted by myself (Manager Product Assurance) and my team member.

I am proposing that the audit report is reviewed by myself prior to sending to the process owner and top manager.

THere is a level of trust in my department even existing to perform this function nad given the factual approach is applied, I don't see the necessity in having process owners and auditees physically sign the report.

Does this seem like a practical approach?
I see no reason for the signatures. If anything it flies in the face of the Deming doctrine of "it's never the person, it is always the system".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

ddchhaya

#88
I see no reason for the signatures. If anything it flies in the face of the Demming doctrine of "it's never the person, it is always the system".
:applause::agree:
Yes, I appreciate and agree. :D
As an individual, we may have our own beliefs and these somehow get precipitated when we articulate a system.
But let us take a reference from ISO 19011:2002, the guidelines for audit, which is a recommendation from ISO to all evolving audit process for own organization.:read:

Item number 4 guides on Principles of auditing and says that audit is characterized by a number of principles that make audit effective and reliable. It further states that adherence to these is a prerequisite for providing audit conclusions to achieve the intent of the audit. The first among them is Ethical Conduct, which is clarified as Trust, integrity, confidentiality and discretion. Here Trust has been mentioned first!

:read: Read this with item 6.5.5, last paragraph. "They (Nonconformities) should be reviewed with the auditee to obtain acknowledgement that the audit evidence is accurate, and that the NCs are understood". Here problem arises in interpretation of the word "acknowledgement". Some feel that it means obtaining signature. Had "Signature" been the intended meaning, ISO 19001:2002 item 6.5.5 would have clearly mentioned "Signature". But when 6.5.5 is read with 4 emphasizing on Trust as one of the basic principles recommended for adherence, the confusion about signature vanishes :cool:.

Thus, if we follow ISO 19011:2002 guidelines and interpret in totality linking entire text, we get good guidance for such questions.
 
B

baby12

#89
the best thing is for to speak to the ceo about the problem becuase an audit report without a signature is nill and void
 
C

ChrissieO

#90
the best thing is for to speak to the ceo about the problem becuase an audit report without a signature is nill and void
errrrrrrrr since when, In 13 years of auditng 3rd & 2nd Party audits and being audited by CBs I have never requested or been requested a signature. Where do any of he standards say this.

Chrissie
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
GStough Auditing Against Criteria Unfamiliar to Auditee - Yea or Nay? General Auditing Discussions 11
K Tips for Auditee Training ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
S Experiences as a female auditor / auditee Career and Occupation Discussions 36
S Why auditee names are not mentioned in Audit Report? General Auditing Discussions 2
L How to deal with resistance from auditee(s) Internal Auditing 20
somashekar Internal Audit without a person as auditee Internal Auditing 6
S Internal Audit Findings Summary Rewrite by an Auditee ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 10
F How to Calm a Nervous Auditee Internal Auditing 14
K Sending Audit Questions to the Auditee in Advance Internal Auditing 20
Howard Atkins What you as an auditee should know about your CB (Certification Body) Registrars and Notified Bodies 0
Jen Kirley What do you do when an auditee says "No thank you" Internal Auditing 86
P What to do when an Auditee Falsifies or Cheated on Records Internal Auditing 6
A What do you do if you have the feeling that your auditee could be lying? Internal Auditing 58
J Auditee offered help with anything in nonconformities Internal Auditing 16
P Internal Audit Finding - Root Cause Analysis: Auditor or an Auditee Responsibility? Internal Auditing 24
B Could ISO 22000 auditee hold Auditor Responsible for subsequent safety breaches? Food Safety - ISO 22000, HACCP (21 CFR 120) 16
V Can the Management Representative represent top management as the sole auditee? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 14
L Corrective action following a wrong answer of the auditee ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 19
B Providing Auditee with Checklist prior to Audit General Auditing Discussions 48
M Auditee Evaluation of Auditors Example, Form or Template General Auditing Discussions 6
E Being IQA Team Leader and auditee - Auditor Independence General Auditing Discussions 9
Claes Gefvenberg The Ideal Auditee General Auditing Discussions 22
J Can I issue a NCR if the auditee did not comply what he is suppose to do? General Auditing Discussions 6
A When someone refuses to follow a process.... Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 21
L Client that refuses to help - How to handle ? Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 5
P A Supplier refuses to share information on his suppliers/sources Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 16
E Management refuses to answer Corrective Action request Nonconformance and Corrective Action 43
Wes Bucey How times have changed! My wife refuses to use "disposables." After Work and Weekend Discussion Topics 14
D Minitab refuses to run saying the Design is Not Balanced - Gage R&R Using Minitab Software 14
C End of Life Vehicle - ELV 2000/53/EC - Supplier refuses to provide information Miscellaneous Environmental Standards and EMS Related Discussions 5
D No response to CAR's - Supplier refuses to answer a corrective action Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 12
I Do I need to sign off my annual audit calendar? Internal Auditing 2
S Study sign off question / responsibilities ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
Q Experience with Adobe Sign Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 3
Y When to Sign up as a Foreign Exporter US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 9
O Inventory control ideas - I have an open stock room with a "sign out" book Manufacturing and Related Processes 9
E Why is the (theoretical) pH slope sometimes cited without the negative sign? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 1
S How to make Single Sign On (SSO) Comply e-sig requirements? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
S Is Adobe Sign - E-signature for QMS documents - 21 cfr part 11 compliant? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
W Job Card/Router sign off - Want to go paperless AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 1
T Stamps vs Signatures - Stamps as inspection/approval sign-off vs. Initials Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 18
T Document Review And Sign Off Second Person Review - FDA Requirements ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
M Opportunity For Improvement - Customer to sign off or approve a new design ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
M Chrysler PSW Sign Off when your product is rated low risk in CQMS IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5
drgnrider Is there a specific OHSAS 18001 sign format? Occupational Health & Safety Management Standards 4
J A Euro sign on a print tolerance? Manufacturing and Related Processes 8
V Documents and Records - To sign or not to sign Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 6
Q Effective 1st Piece Inspection Sign Off Procedure Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 8
C Who in the supplier organization has to sign the PSW (Part Submission Warranty)? APQP and PPAP 6
C EN 60601-1:2012 - Requirement to use an Electrical Safety Sign on Products ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2

Similar threads

Top Bottom