IIA (Institute of Internal Auditors) Defines Internal Auditing

Originally posted by AJPaton:

Don't take it personally, and don't let conflicts develop. If there was no better way to do your job you'd be trapped in a dead end job. There's always room for improvement, and even your HR guy could provide good input.

Click to expand...

Bingo on two counts. Yes - don't take it personally. And - Asking questions probes. They make people think. The problematic part is writing up an 'opportunity for improvement'. Worst case is an auditor gets the GOD complex and sees opportunities for improvement everywhere.

personality? isn't that what makes the world go round?

hey ...on that floor sweeper internal auditor telling Design Enineers what they are doing wrong, and making suggestions....Maybe.....Its not so much the making suggestions as it is asking a question, with genuine interest and inquisitive form, requiring evidence... that makes the design engineer look at something simple through different eyes and question his actions to initiate his own improvements as a response..instead of not seeing the forest through the trees, he now sees the leaves!!!!!!

opps....once again i only read so much, entered a response and didn't see marc already said that!!!! dah

I forgive you Barb! In fact, I am guilty of that probably as often as you are.

Marc said: These things are done and I admit sometimes a suggestion is appropriate. However, I have seen this go to extremes where an auditor is making suggestions about a system that they have no qualifications in. The auditor calls them suggestions and the auditee calls them opinions. And the fight is on!

The auditee is probably right. No fault of either party in general either. The internal auditor (company associate) is just trying to fufill an obligation, one with which they have limited knowledge and experience. Compounding that, they may have limited knowledge about the area they are auditing. Leads to incorrect conclusions and muddled suggestions. Knowledge of auditing and the area being audited is key here. Many organizations do the best they can, given the circumstances, but forget this essential point. Can end up making things worse.

Now who has this knowledge? The outside consultant or the HR associate? I believe each has an advantage and disadvantage over the other. What is the nature of your business or the area being audited? Who would best support an audit in this area? Careful consideration and knowledge of auditor strengths and weaknesses is in order.

Additionally, the auditee may be the authority, but should not be beyond reproach. Only a fool would choose to dismiss comments made on the grounds that they already know it all! Everyone must keep in mind that this is a continuous improvement process.

Regards,

Kevin

In my company we talk about two levels of internal auditing.

Compliance auditing; Are people following the system. This is where I start new auditors. I reckon this is a fairly easy decision for an auditor, and I'm not too worried about the background of the auditor.

Effectiveness auditing; Is the system effective at helping the company achieve its goals. When I give someone one of these audits, I believe they have to have relevant background experience to judge whether or not the system will help us hit our target over the year(s) ahead. I also expect the auditors to have developed enough experience to realise they are not God. Otherwise you are right "internal auditor hell" arrives at some speed. Rather than tell people how to run their system we concentrate on the effect of the system on targets and performance standards. This usually helps them find their own solution instead of having one imposed by the auditor. The golden rule for all my auditors is let people run their own systems. If they don't want to take our advice, that is their perogative. Mind you we make sure their boss knows whats going on.

In short I think both views expressed are correct, and the emphasis is on the audit manager to pick the right auditor for the job.

Originally posted by isorin:

An HR employee is auditing the sytem not the job done.

Click to expand...

I don't agree that internal auditors should be auditing the system. I believe they should be restricted to auditing the job done (work instructions, procedures, etc.)

I have found it useful to divide auditing into three catagories and responsibilities.

1- Quality System Audits, A random sampling of the quality system. This does NOT include auditing compliance to the standard.

Resp: Internal Auditor

2- Process Audits, An audit of a specific process, i.e., machining operation, welding, plating.

Resp: Internal Auditor

3- Product Audits, A breakdown of the final product. Verify paperwork trail,inspection and test results, for each item of the product. Verify key characteristics meet dimensional requirements.

Resp: Layout Inspection

How about:

Compliance (do we comply with the standard)
Example: Desk audit of high level systems

System (the theory)
Example: Audit of Document Control

Process (the practice)
Example: Audit of an assembly or fabrication ‘station’ (note to service industries: you DO have comparable processes)

Product (the result)
Example: Dock Audit

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 10 June 2001).]

Another thought:

Internal (First Party, Self)
This type includes audits by your company employees, consultants and contractors.

External
1. Supplier Audit
1a. Second Party
This is where a customer employee audits your company or where your employee audits a company which supplies your company.

Independent Organization
1. Third Party - Registrar
1a. A customer wants an audit of your company but wants your company to pay for it.
1b. This type of audit is described as independent, but with QS-9000 this is not really the case.

I may as well jump in with my two left feet. We recently had internal auditor training conducted by an experienced "instructor" through a grant funded by our State Dept of Labor. He taught our auditors to use the new standard to audit our procedures. I bit my lip during the training, but told him (privately) that I will not allow the new auditors to audit the procedures. The procedures were written and approved to comply with the standard. If that is allowed, we would be sparring over their inexperienced interpretation of the standard and we would never get around to auditing how the procedures are being followed. We are using Human Resource, Accounting, Engineering, Production Control, Designer, System Administrator(MIS),Shop, and Quality personnel(me). The consultant agreed and when we meet again, soon, we will concentrate on the procedures, not the standard. Another consultant(one we are under contract to) is reviewing and commenting on the procedures before our internal auditors see them. These are all bright people, but they lack the experience necessary to dig into the standard. This forum demonstrates differing opinions from experienced "Qualified" individuals. Our internal auditors will be allowed to report all observations and our steering committee will separate the wheat from the chaff. JMHO

energy