Some systems are overly dependent on auditors

The management system should be helping its users to do good work. System auditors evaluate evidence and report how well the system is fulfilling its objectives (effectiveness) and other audit criteria.

Auditor questions and the ensuing discussions quite often enable the auditees to determine where the system needs to be improved before the auditor has to declare the ineffectiveness or other nonconformity.

Improvements should first flow from planning and monitoring by operators, their supervisors and managers. Auditors, therefore are at least the fourth entity to look at process effectiveness and perhaps among the first (behind the project manager?) to bring a system view to the project and its processes.

In a mature system no more that 20% of the improvement actions should come from audit.

Systems that depend on their auditors for improvement are dysfunctional. Trouble is too many auditors just issue the oft too common OFI (opportunity for improvement) and do not investigate the reasons for the users not being informed by their system of the need to improve their system. Instead, the system weakness (failure to inform its users of needed improvements) remains in the system.

How do auditors avoid propping up a weak system that depends on them?

Tags: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: