|
Contents
| Quality Encyclopedia
| Discussion Blogs
Management
of the Audit Function
The following is
an excerpt from The
Complete Guide to the CQA by Steve
Baysinger, © Quality Publishing.
The Complete Guide
to the CQA may be ordered from the Quality
Publishing Order Form.
An effective audit function
should provide all levels of management an independent appraisal
of their operations and assist them in achieving maximum efficiency
while achieving overall organizational goals (Institute of
Internal Auditors, “Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal
Auditing”). However, before the manager of the organization’s
audit function can begin to promote the audit department’s positive
contributions to the organization, improve upon the products generated
by auditing (i.e., audit reports, analysis), or contribute to the overall
continuous improvement of the organization in general, the audit department’s
leadership must seek feedback on its own performance. There are many sources
of feedback; both internal and external to the audit department.
Feedback
from Management
Certainly one of the most
important sources of feedback is from senior management. It is critical
the audits scheduled to be performed by the audit department closely match
the interests of the company’s senior leadership. The audit department’s
mission statement must be in line with organizational policies, special
interests, and short-term and long-term goals.
Feedback
from the Auditee
You might think it unusual
for the auditor to ask for feedback from the auditee, however, it is important
that his or her voice be heard. There is nothing quite so difficult as
requesting an assessment of your performance by those whose management
and leadership abilities you’ve just reviewed and critiqued. Nevertheless,
it is important to know how you and your work were perceived by the auditee.
From the initial contact, to the audit entrance conference, through to
the exit briefing, you need feedback regarding the auditee’s perception
of you (and the team). Without this feedback, you will not have the information
you need to improve your future performance.
Feedback
from Audit Team Members
Almost as difficult as
asking for performance feedback from the auditee is requesting it from
your own audit team members. No one is as tough on a quality auditor’s
performance as a fellow auditor. Obtaining feedback, and evaluating team
effectiveness, is usually best achieved in the Process Review and Action
Team (PRAT) setting. The PRAT is one avenue that may be used to determine
not just whether the audit team’s performance (or audit function,
for that matter) can be improved upon, but how it can be improved
upon. Methods such as brainstorming; nominal group technique; cause and
effect analysis; and so on, work well in this forum.
Customer
Feedback Regarding Product and Service Quality
Customer feedback in the
form of survey data, interviews, complaint rate, etc., is a vital source
of feedback. This information is critical to the audit function in that
the quality system elements designed to assure product quality (e.g.,
process control, corrective and preventive action) were probably assessed
by the internal audit department at one time or another and found to be
acceptable. Negative customer feedback may be indicative of:
- One or more quality
system elements having gone awry since the last assessment.
- The quality system
element(s) previously assessed may have been done so incorrectly.
- Management’s “pencil
whipping” of corrective and preventive actions to earlier audit
findings.
- A lack of, or insufficient
follow-up action in response to audit findings by the quality audit
function.
Audit Function
Effectiveness Rating
The overall effectiveness
rating of the audit team usually comes from one or both of the following
sources:
- External customers-the
suppliers, distributors, manufacturers, etc., whose quality system,
process, and/or product you have assessed, and/or;
- Internal “customers”-your
supervisor, his or her supervisor, and those responsible for managing
and maintaining the daily internal processes and products within the
company.
Quality auditors are judged
on their performance. Specifically, their appearance, their conduct, their
approach to the audit. Within this sphere of professionalism, “customers”
of the audit department generally judge auditors using one particular
type of criteria: the “quality” of audit findings and observations
to include the soundness of the logic supporting the auditor’s recommendations
to correct those findings and observations. Nothing is more frustrating
to an auditee than to be the recipient of an audit write-up that has no
apparent impact upon the quality system, process, or product.
Setting
Management Goals for Continuous Improvement
Setting organizational
goals for continuous improvement is a necessity. Continuous improvement
certainly applies to quality auditing as well. As technology and the way
in which it is managed and manipulated advances, quality auditors need
to become experts not only in their area of expertise, but also in the
latest management theories and practices, as well as in state-of-the-art
technology. Continuous improvement involves knowing what type of management
your company (or the audited organization) is practicing (i.e., integrated
process teaming, concurrent engineering, etc.), as well as the hardware
and software in use, especially as it applies to automated procedures,
work instructions, engineering drawings, and revisions. As a minimum,
quality auditors need to educate themselves on the latest in:
- Quality auditing philosophy,
techniques and practices;
- Management philosophy,
techniques and practices, as well as:
- Computer hardware and
software.
To add maximum value
to the organization, the audit function must ensure its auditors are proficient
in all three areas.
|
