 |
Auditing –
at the dawn of opportunity
Revising the business
model
It is not in an organization’s interest to skimp on its
assessment program. But, management needs to be convinced of its cost-benefits.
The track record suggests auditors have been less than effective in that.
Indeed, everyday expensive advertisements in newspapers, prestigious magazines
and on television show business willingly pays to announce quality awards
conferred by J.D. Power & Associates, thereby considering they have
greater cache than ISO 9K styled certificates or the Malcolm Baldrige
Award – America’s “flagship” quality award. The
latter two seldom if ever feature in TV ads.
To move forward necessitates a root and branch overhaul of the governing
bodies, committee membership, standards and so forth. It is in the interests
of all who wish to earn a living as assessors to campaign for one. My
experience suggests a revised business model should embrace the following,
as a minimum:
• Expectations of and requirements for being a professional assessor
will broaden and deepen so the requisite qualifications and training schemes
must be revised accordingly. A profession cannot risk allowing other than
the most diligent/ qualified people to be qualified as assessors, notably
in such sensitive industries where health and safety are involved.
• Discredited and ineffective methods, training courses, qualification
schemes and so forth must be discarded. (The old docs and sticker stuff
has had its day.) This will require a willingness to resist the demands
for diluting or compromising upgraded requirements those unwilling to
change, the incompetent and the underperforming will make to protect themselves
in preference to supporting our profession. If necessary, they must be
politely shown the door!
• Offering solutions must become a main feature of the assessment
service. Management wants this, as its pursuit of initiatives such as
six sigma shows. Concerns about “conflict of interest”, COI,
need discarding. As we have observed from the millennium’s scandals
in the financial auditing world, the real concern, for COI, is that an
assessor might collude in covering up malfeasance, malpractice or malfunction
because of pressure exerted by the real paymaster. Trying to help through
offering advice on business improvement is a totally different matter:
it can only help the various stakeholders involved. And, events prove,
advice and assistance is what management – our customers –
wants.
Having carefully considered the matter, it is my view that internal auditors’
phony COI concerns are a major reason why ISO 9K programs have been less
effective than they should, why management has become frustrated with
them and why registration numbers are falling.
• In discarding COI concerns, registrars must be permitted to offer
help and advice. Contrary to common belief, I would like to see a stronger
registration industry. It is something for which I have pressed since
the late 1980s. Indeed, my belief in the need for a professional registration
service can be found in all of my management audit books dating back to
my first manuscript, written in 1978. Also to see them prospering through
being more involved in business performance matters The regulations need
changing to allow them to do so and the registrars themselves need to
learn about and undertake value assessments. Being a high profile part
of “auditing”, the quality of their service has a major influence
on management’s opinion of our profession. In my view it is time
we removed those restraints imposed on registrars. But, safeguards concerning
how they will then discharge their duties will be needed. (Current space
and time constraints prevent from further elaborating.)
• It is misleading to argue that assessors are not responsible for
quality. This belief must be corrected. While it is true, in the direct
sense of not being the process owners, assessors are placed in a position
of trust to advise whether or not the organizations’ policies, practices
and procedures will be efficacious. A key duty is to advise of risk: for
this, the assessor must comprehend the consequences of failure.
Only the most foolhardy manager ignores a written assessment report that
raises verifiable facts of inefficacy and of risk. In the absence of that
advice, is it unreasonable to suppose management will decide to proceed
knowing not the associated risks?
• When studying nuclear engineering, at the University of Strathclyde,
as the course concerning radiation began, my professor projected explicit
photographs showing the effects of radiation on human beings. When working
in the nuclear power industry I never forgot those sickening images. Later,
when joining the offshore oil industry, a frightening movie recording
an actual “blow-out” of an oil platform, forcibly demonstrated
the vulnerability of the platform workers.
The consequences of poor quality and sloppy auditing were made apparent
by those experiences: they probably made me a better auditor and are responsible
for my maxim, “Never lose sight of the product”.
So, I contend assessors should be required to see similar, graphic material
pertinent to their industry’s products, and that it should be a
mandatory part of their training. They need to fully comprehend the consequences
of failure. Assessment is not a game. It is not a cash cow. It is serious
business.
Why are you here?
The bifurcation of quality and other events show management has taken
the initiative to get the service it wants: with or without the audit
profession being its providers. We must not be left behind, becoming an
irrelevance. There may not be another dawn like the one now before us.
In 1995, at your Baltimore Conference and in 1999, in Houston, I advised
of the need to offer a value added service: value assessing will be that
service unless it is destroyed by the usual admixture of sleazy consultants
and trainers stealing the expression and labeling their same old wine
bottles with it.
As you attend this conference, some personal introspection is advisable:
ask yourself, why are you here, what are your goals and personal professional
standards? What are the standards you believe are appropriate for our
profession and how can you be of assistance in raising them. What is needed
to benefit your employer? Is this conference helping? Do not be afraid
to provide constructive feedback about the presentations you attend, especially
if you think they are not conducive to professional improvement. You may
not personally get involved in standards committees and similar, but each
of you is vital to the success of this profession: your contribution is
important.
Make this conference the dawn of your new professional life. Unprecedented
opportunities are at hand; we only need to respond appropriately.
© 2005 Allan Sayle Associates. All rights reserved.
Allan J. Sayle
President Allan Sayle Associates |
Allan J. Sayle has published numerous articles and
delivered major speeches around the world in his 35 years experience.
His book "Management Audits", ISBN 0951173901, now in its
3rd edition was first written in 1978 and is acknowledged as the "classic"
and "definitive" text on that subject. Sayle is also acknowledged
as the originator of the "Process Approach" (or "Task
Element" approach) to auditing and quality programs, a method
he developed in the early 1970s and which is now the de facto approach
used around the world: the process approach is now at the heart of
ISO 9001:2000. He is a pioneer of value-added audits. Allan Sayle's
seminal work in Quality Management has influenced every practising
quality professional. More information is available at his web site
www.sayle.com.
|
top of page |
 |
