 |
Internal audits and pastures new?
By Allan J. Sayle, President Allan Sayle
Associates
Self certification
Why not? The idea of certificates of compliance, CofC’s, is certainly
not new and the customer can visit and satisfy itself of the validity.
Since NKUK is indicating it does involve its customer in the PR, the customer
will be visiting its supplier and can quickly determine the efficacy of
the supplier’s PR. “We meet the requirements of ISO 9001:2000”
may be sufficient. Or, more likely, for reasons stated above, “Our
QMS meets the guidelines expressed in ISO 9001:2000”. Or, “our
QMS meets the intent of the guidelines of ISO 9001:2000”.
What is the difference in value of such statements from a CofC stating,
“This steel meets ASTM 316L”. Such testimonies have
been accepted for decades: and registrars such as DNV and Lloyds commonly
accepted CofC’s in issuing “Certificates of Fitness”
for the likes of oil platforms installed in the North Sea.
The key question would seem to be, if I were a customer, would I accept
a self-certificate? One’s answer is “Yes”, depending
on the product involved and whether or not I decide to participate in
the supplier’s PR at the supplier’s premises where my supplies
are produced.
In any case, in light of the (too many) horror stories circulating over
the years since ISO 9K came into being and its registration industry appeared,
like many others I have been unwilling to take much notice of the certificates
issued anyway: they have never been the deciding factor in any assessment
undertaken of a supplier’s QMS, for reasons I have explained on
numerous times elsewhere.
Effect on auditor training?
If registrars accept there is no need to perform internal audits
in the conventional manner, they must accept there is no need to require
qualified auditors or audit training for the purposes of qualifying company
auditors. Of course, auditor training for their own people is an entirely
different matter they must resolve together with their accreditation bodies.
It would also follow anyone trained on an audit course delivered (sold)
by a registrar may wish to claim a refund if that registrar was accepting
PR as the internal audit surrogate before the training was sold,
especially if that registrar issued a corrective action request based
on failure to train internal auditors.
So, why bother with auditor training? Why bother with certification? The
answer rests in the prospective auditor’s own organization’s
aspirations. If it wants to compete in the global market place it must
move towards “value assessments”, as noted in that 2005 keynote
address. And, as delegates who attended heard my sidebar remark, registrars
do not have the experience or capability of offering any course in that
topic, though I have little doubt some will disingenuously claim otherwise
and try to peddle the same old stuff in a relabeled bottle (as will many
of the familiar names in the “consulting” arena, perhaps under
the auspices of the so-called professional bodies).
To survive, quality “auditors” must move into the new age
of value assessing. And, that will also mean a different type of person
with a different set of basic qualifications will become the “assessors”.
We can expect a major shift in the nature of “auditor” training
and in the body of knowledge fundamental to so-called auditor qualifications.
I have my thoughts, experience and material at hand, upon which at present
I will not enlarge.
The alleged NKUK statement – inevitable and predicted outcome
of poor audit training.
Few people working in today’s quality arena should be in the
least way surprised that a company’s people regarded internal audits
as being activities chasing up with schedules “for the benefit
of the certification body”. That has been a fairly typical
use of audits by many firms. It reflects, of course, the level of service
delivered by auditors that results in a lack of top management support
for auditing. And, in the majority of cases I have seen, it is a direct
result of poor quality training delivered to those auditors.
One must consider how many people have been trained on “recognized”
or “registered” courses purporting to be “audit training
courses”. A number of registrars have offered such courses over
the years and, until ISO 9001:2000 emerged embracing the “process
approach” the content was generally based on the old “docs
and stickers” stuff I have derided for over 30 years! Neither Yell
nor NKUK ever have been clients of mine and I am confident that had they
been so, they would not have gained the impression of “audits”
and their use that they have: at any level of their staff.
So, that at least two firms are trying to be “audit free”,
as Mr. Wade puts it, is a reflection on the state of audit training generally
available in the marketplace, of the effectiveness of schemes for registering
or recognizing those courses. I suspect there are many more harboring
similar feelings and “yearning to be free,” as Emma Lazarus
would describe those tired, poor and huddled masses of firms!
And, as those who attended my various speeches and seminars know well
I have been forewarning of the need to “raise sights, raise standards...”
and so forth, and of the eventual demise of “auditing” if
conducted in the way typical of so many. Indeed, at a meeting organized
by the IQA, held at Cranfield Institute, November 1990, and attended by
all the then “certification bodies” (registrars) and “recognized”
training “providers”, I expressed my views about all and sundry
in blunt terms warning of the eventual damage that would occur: my remarks
were received with displeasure. I retract not one of them.
Though my course was one of the first four recognized by the IQA in the
mid 1980s, I pulled out of its scheme at the beginning of the 1990s as
I fundamentally disagreed with its requirements and did not want to be
associated with courses under that or similar schemes. (In fact, I was
criticized for teaching my “Task Element” approach –
i.e. the process approach – instead of the then current text of
ISO 9001:1987 family, which neither embraced nor contained that approach!)
As more and more individuals and firms piled into “audit training”,
it became a commodity and I found one was tarred with the same brush as
a result. Accordingly, I stopped offering my audit training on a public
basis preferring to work in-house for clients on an exclusive basis and
have only presented my course publicly on two occasions in the last 10
years: each time by invitation of the ASQ.
Prudent management knows it needs an assurance tool and has shunned the
others’ types of internal audits, as they did not deliver the results
they needed. But, that poor level of service was and seems still sufficient
to satisfy registrars and maintain certification. That, in and of itself,
does not speak highly of certification or registrar standards. But then,
who trained them, to what standards were they examined and then certified
as “Lead Auditors” or “Lead Assessors”? Not me,
not mine and not my course, I am relieved to say.
Based on any number of inquiries I receive for training, it seems an growing
number of firms believe an individual can be fully trained in only a few
hours to become an “auditor”. That reflects the skills and
competence level they see applied by “qualified auditors.”
It also evinces their low expectations of the quality of service received.
Such assignments are politely refused but the inquirers frequently allege
other trainers confidently claim a half-day or day is all that is needed.
Their arrant nonsense is calculated to win business and make a fast buck
without regard to the consequences for the quality profession as a whole.
And, even the schemes that claim someone needs only a couple of days of
training to become a qualified internal auditor are misguided. Auditing
is auditing whether the auditee is external or internal but the schemes
and course providers think business is well served by devoting less time
to training internal auditors than to external ones. And, of course, management
encounters more closely the service (or lack thereof) delivered by internal
auditors than external ones. Can one, therefore, be surprised if internal
auditing gets the “press” exemplified in Mr. Wade’s
posting, allegedly derived from NKUK?
The solution being used by those two particular firms highlights the failure
of the registered training courses, the schemes and the methods taught:
consistent with my criticisms, spoken and written, over the years. To
use a Jack Welch sentiment it is time to fix them or close them and I
have no grounds for believing those presently involved or running them
could do the first. If after some 15 - 20 years those involved could not
make the schemes and courses deliver the level of service business needs,
why should one think they could now? Perhaps in pursuing PR, ill-served
firms are tacitly saying, “enough is enough. If you could not
get it right by now, you never will.” That is, management has
started to take that second course: close them.
: Effects
on the registration industry
top of page |
 |
