Although the exercise of internal auditing is used to benefit the business as a whole, the promise of a boost in efficiency still can’t prevent managers and even the auditors themselves from approaching this highly worthwhile process with negativity.
Staff members have every right to be a little reluctant to accept change if they’ve worked in the same way, with the same people for a number of years. They’re being forced to abandon their ‘tried and tested’ processes in favour of suggestions that may aid them in the long run. However, in the meantime the notion of change might seem daunting.
This is far from the only reason why auditing is seen in a negative light. For one, an emphasis on compliance with existing documented procedures could cause workers to feel like someone’s constantly looking to catch them out. Then, when someone fails to adhere to a certain process, the response is to implement a quick fix in order to plug the gap rather than fix it altogether.
This virtually defeats the object of auditing and its lackadaisical approaches like these that can sap away some of the passion that an internal auditor has for their work. Fortunately companies can even audit their auditing, helping them reap the full range of benefits on offer.
Gaining support from the top
The problem – Lack of enthusiasm towards auditing. Few recognisable figures taking part.
The solution – Good auditing is driven by a passion for improvement. The easiest way to ensure that enthusiasm towards this exercise runs throughout the organisation is to gain involvement from the very top.
Now, gaining support from figures at boardroom level often rests on whether success has been achieved in the steps beforehand. Managers could be more inclined to become an auditor and encourage employee involvement if they know their actions will pay off in the long run. As long as progress has been evident from the start, fellow auditors can gain from having their company’s most influential figures on board.
Taking corrective action
The problem – High proportion of nonconformities but an over-reliance on quick fixes.
The solution – Companies that see the same issues cropping up time and time again will learn there’s a huge difference between taking corrective action and simply making a correction. In business terms, the latter represents a series of specific steps that are taken to eliminate the causes of non-conformance to improve efficiencies and quality. The former merely seeks to rectify an error as soon as it has happened, but there is no focus on preventing a recurrence of the same issue.
This carefree approach warps people’s perceptions of auditing and causes them to think it’s a trivial exercise. Had these same businesses taken corrective action when addressing kinks in their operation, they may have felt differently.
Promoting innovation
The problem – More focus on compliance rather than improvement.
The solution – Until suggestions for improvement have been made, managers should adhere to existing processes unless told otherwise. In the meantime, internal auditing should be used to measure the effectiveness of the current systems and suggest ways they can change for the better. This will help dispel the idea that auditing is about finding fault.
Improving the nonconformity report
Auditors can save a lot of time in repeating the same advice by reporting their findings in detail. That’s why it pays to develop a system within a system for flagging up any examples of bad practice. When reporting the failure to conform to a prevailing rule, the auditor should create time to:
- Fully explain the requirement through the appropriate words and tone. When noting a lengthy clause, they should try paraphrasing to be succinct
- If the requirement is linked to an existing management system, they should be precise as to the exact element of the procedure; going into as much detail as necessary. If possible, the reference number of the clause of the standard or system should be noted
- The same applies when recording the actual evidence. Cases for improvements are based on these entries, so the writing and phrasing needs to be clear
- When recording the evidence, all statements should be based on facts and facts alone. No assumptions should be recorded, while the phrasing in sentences should not imply as much: ‘the statistics were too hard to understand but we got the gist’ being an example
How can a company guarantee that they have an effective nonconformity reporting system in place? The advice here is simple: if any of the auditees have to ask who, what, when and why after reading the entry, it lacks the required information.
