ONE GOOD IDEA

Turning the Frown Upside Down

by Dave Parker and Anne Marie Parker

It is good practice to communicate the progress of the audit during the actual audit.

However, it is sometimes too easy to lay most of the emphasis on nonconformity, we have found when summarizing audit findings at the closing meeting. We have devised—and used—a simple mechanism to ensure feedback is balanced between areas of both conformity and nonconformity.

One objective of an audit is to determine the extent to which of the auditee’s quality management system complies with the audit criteria, which are usually an applicable standard like ISO 9001. Conformity and nonconformity are equally important.

In our experience, too many audits have been conducted with a wholly negative approach. The feedback perpetrates negativity and manifests itself in a fear of future audits.

Our approach, which seeks to balance the feedback, ensures that during the audit we look for areas of good practice as well as areas that need improvement. We do not describe findings in these areas as “good” and “bad” but as “good” and “could be better.”

We use a simple format to communicate this mixture of feedback. A sample is shown in Figure 1. The left column keeps the entries numbered. From there, the next column details the areas of good practice, including a positive smiley face for good measure. The next column describes the areas for improvement, including a neutral face to lighten things a bit, not a negative sad face.

If we are auditing for compliance against a particular standard (ISO 9001 in the example shown), then we usually include the relevant clause number in the final column on the right.

Although the feedback can be typed and presented as a document at the closing meeting, we prefer to write it on a flipchart. This way, we can ensure everyone at the closing meeting can see the feedback.

In addition, we often reveal the feedback line by line, keeping the rest of the feedback covered to ensure everyone stays focused as each individual finding is presented.

In the example shown in Figure 1, each of the entries except three and five shows balanced feedback. Entry three includes only an area of good practice—no improvements were suggested. In the case of entry five there was no mitigating good practice to offer following the audit. Customer satisfaction was not being measured at all. This is nonconformity against ISO 9001 clause 8.2.1, as shown in the final column on the right.

Those who are being audited appreciate this balanced feedback approach. The approach also encourages us—the auditors—to seek areas of good practice during the audit and offer praise where it is appropriate. We also receive clear feedback on our findings at the closing meeting.

Our entire findings are presented in this feedback format as an overview. Therefore, there will be no surprises in the audit report that we prepare and later deliver. We do not include anything in the audit report that was not covered in this balanced feedback offered in the closing meeting. We believe this approach makes us better auditors and gives our audits a more constructive tone.

We have received a good deal of constructive feedback on this approach from auditees. Clients seem to like the balanced approach. An external ISO 9001 assessor even told us he was impressed enough to adopt the approach himself.

---

DAVE PARKER is a quality consultant for Parker Quality Consultants Ltd. in Lancashire, England. He received his bachelor’s degree in geology at the University of Hull in Humberside, England. He is a senior member of ASQ.

ANNE MARIE PARKER is a business analyst and experienced facilitator at AM Positive Solutions Ltd. in Lancashire. She received her master’s degree in history at Edinburgh University in Scotland.