This ISO Standard contains an element (8) intended to
encompass a range of features which together support a
mechanism to improve the performance of the management
system. Internal audit forms part of this set, but only a
part, yet is probably the only element readily recognisable
to the average person. Internal audit is significant, not
because of the results it delivers but because the ongoing
registration process for ISO9001 companies ensures that
Internal Audit is subject to regular scrutiny. It is our
contention that the impact of internal audit on the average
company is minimal to the point of being useless.
Primarily this is due not to the concept of audit, but the
manner in which it is managed and conducted.
Generalising, quality management processes are tolerated
rather than being welcomed. They are part of the cost of
doing business, primarily due to the failure of the systems
to deliver any tangible benefit beyond the marketing
advantage said to arise from the registered status of the
organisation. A calm examination of the detailed
requirements built into the Standard should provide the
assurance that the benefits of a controlled work
environment will be achieved by following this text in a
manner that matches the specific nature and ethos of the
organisation. But it just doesn't happen. More
specifically, it doesn't happen often enough to provide the
evidence of unfailing benefits for the adoption of the
standard.
With a Standard that is International in both origin and
application, how can this be? To understand this it is
necessary to examine the role of those who see their role
as one of policing the management system. Often carrying
the title of Quality Manager, this individual (sometimes
with a team of helpers) is held responsible for the
integrity of the documented system and implicitly at least
for the quality of the outgoing product or service.
Quality Managers have their roots in a manufacturing
function whose equivalent would have been the Chief
Inspector. The name alone provides an indication of the
status - perceived or actual- of this individual. He was
unquestionably the final authority regarding the acceptable
quality of the company's product. Acceptance or Rejection
was his decision. Without having physically been there, to
many of today's quality managers behave in much the same
way. With little real understanding or appreciation of the
management function, and certainly not the executive role,
they fail to speak the language of their local leaders,
with clear consequences.
It is a management responsibility to define company
objectives and policies, and management will establish - or
have established for them - systems to support these
policies and objectives. Their need, although seldom
expressed, is for an assurance that the systems are
providing the controls and benefits they planned for. They
need reassurance. The Internal Audit should provide
information specific to the operation of the management
system and focussed on this management need, but it seldom
works that way. For the most part, the reports of internal
audit activity contain a multitude of trivial failings
packaged as 'non-conformance', frequently to a requirement
that is not specified or is imaginary, and having little
bearing on the needs of management. Is it surprising that
Internal Audit is seen as a necessary evil, conducted to
satisfy the ISO auditor, but having little relevance to
life in the real world of commerce and industry?
When material such as this is provided to managers who see
no real value in the investment, it is not just the audit
that is ignored but the perpetrators of the audit also. A
direct consequence of this failure to identify the audit
customer's need is a rejection of much that has a Quality
Management implication. Managers and quality department
staff universally complain of lack of management commitment
(an ISO9001 requirement), and a general lack of personal
advancement opportunities. But improvement is possible,
even radical improvement, and it requires a change in
strategy for both Executive Managers and those purporting
to be Quality Professionals.
The change process:
1. The organisation must recognise that every manager and
employee has a responsibility to perform in accordance with
the requirements laid down for their work. Nobody else can
be responsible for the quality of this work.
2. The title Quality Managers is clearly not a true
indication of the function of this individual. Holding the
QM responsible for a failure in product of service is
clearly wrong unless that delivery was by its nature part
of his (or her) normal function.
3. Internal audits should be a recognisable independent
assessment of each business function, carried for the
function's manager and reported to that individual alone.
(The functional managers have the responsibility for
achieving a selection of business objectives, and it is
they who need the information to support these objectives).
4. It follows that the auditors, while being independent of
the function being audited, should also understand the role
and responsibilities of senior managers, and speak at that
level.
5. These changes require the dissolution of the existing
audit regime, and some re-education of the management team
who are responsible for allowing the adverse situation to
exist.
6. Professional auditors with a wider experience than that
obtainable within one or a limited number of organisations
alone can provide the assurance and service level needed by
an effective management team.
----------------------------------------------------
Meon Consulting, founded by Ed Bones, was formed to assist
clients with managing their businesses in a manner
compliant with ISO9001/14001. Ed had earlier held a number
of senior posts with Hi-Tech companies in the UK, Europe
and the USA. He has written and lectured on full range of
topics on quality improvement and TQM.
http://www.rent-an-auditor.co.uk . To obtain your FREE
Presentation please visit
http://www.rent-an-auditor.co.uk/contactus.html
No comments:
Post a Comment