My favourite quotation that sums up the way too many auditors behave is that “auditors are sent in after the battle to bayonet the wounded!”
That’s just what it feels like to many people having a daily struggle against demand outstripping supply and management that doesn’t seem to care. Then in comes the auditor and tells them what they already know – there too much for them to do and they haven’t got the right staff with the right training and the right tools to do the job effectively let alone efficiently.
That said, when I’m auditing I believe it’s important to communicate both conformity and nonconformity as the audit progresses. When summarising the audit findings at the closing meeting, or at any interim feedback meeting, it is sometimes too easy to lay most of the emphasis on nonconformity.
I use a simple mechanism to ensure feedback is balanced between areas of both conformity and nonconformity. This also reminds me to seek out areas of good practice as well as areas that need improvement.
Instead of describing findings “good” and “bad” I try to categorise them as “good” and “could be better.” I use a simple format to communicate this mixture of feedback. A sample is shown in the table below.
| |
Areas of Good Practice |
Areas for Improvement
|
ISO 9001 |
| 1. |
All staff audited have defined objectives. |
Many of the objectives are not easily measured. |
5.4.1 |
| 2. |
Management reviews are conducted every three months. |
A record of the output from the last management review has not yet been produced. |
5.6.1 |
| 3. |
Records of the evaluation of suppliers are well-controlled. |
|
7.4.1 |
| 4. |
Design reviews are conducted at appropriate stages in the design activities. |
Records of these reviews do not show that agreed actions have been completed. |
7.3.4 |
| 5. |
|
Customer satisfaction is not measured. |
8.2.1 |
| 6. |
Problems in the field are analysed and resolved to remove the immediate cause of the problem. |
Further analysis to determine the root cause of problems would serve to prevent their recurrence. |
8.5.2 |
The left column keeps the entries numbered. From there, the next column details the areas of good practice. The next column describes the areas for improvement. If I’m auditing against a particular standard (such as ISO 9001) then I usually include the relevant clause number in the final column on the right.
Although this feedback can be typed and presented as a document at the closing meeting, I prefer to write it on a flipchart. In this way I can ensure that everyone at the closing meeting can see the feedback. In addition, I often reveal the feedback line by line, keeping the rest of the feedback covered to ensure everyone stays focused as each individual finding is presented.
In the example shown in Figure 1, each of the entries except three and five shows balanced feedback. Entry three includes only an area of good practice—no improvements were suggested. In the case of entry five there was no mitigating good practice to offer following the audit. Customer satisfaction was not being measured at all. This is nonconformity against ISO 9001 clause 8.2.1, as shown in the final column on the right.
Those who are being audited appreciate this balanced feedback approach. The approach also encourages us as auditors to seek areas of good practice during the audit and offer praise where it is appropriate.
I also receive clear feedback on our findings at the closing meeting. The entire findings are presented in this feedback format as an overview. Therefore, there will be no surprises in the audit report that is prepared and delivered later. Nothing is included in the audit report that was not covered in this balanced feedback offered in the closing meeting.
I believe this approach makes me a better auditor and gives audits a more constructive tone.
As organisations adopt more formal management system standards (such as ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO/IEC 20000) these are frequently implemented as standalone systems.
