eAuditing......Taking It To The Next Level?

What's eAuditing?

 

Are you talking virtual auditing? As in, conducting an audit without going on-site?

If so, yes, I have done these. Screens were shared so that I could see e-records and in cases where it was not available electronically, a copy was emailed to me during the course of the e-audit.

The difficult part is body language - you can't read it, even with a video conference call. I've learned to listen to nuances and changes in tone...gauge pauses (i.e., are they thinking of how to phrase their answer or are they all sharing looks and trying to come up with an excuse?)...and stuff like that.

I do this style, when I'm required to conduct a lot of audits within a short time period. This maximizes my time in preparing and documenting.

I've learned that I do require a bit more prep time just to ensure I'm as familiar with the process as possible.

 

GoTo Meeting and Scopia are what I've used to conduct e-audits. This allows the auditee to share their screen with me and show me their records. The downside is that you don't get a feel for the work environment and culture, and how they impact the organization's processes. It is a great approach to maximize resources and lower costs...but it does rely heavily on documenting your evidence. I find that when I am onsite, my peripheral senses pick things up and support my audit notes. e-auditing can easily become an exercise in "scribing" what the auditee is saying and not really paying attention to the answers or the way they are provided.

Risks include technology failure (i.e., teleconference system goes down, their internal systems go down so they can't share information) and missing communication between the auditees (if there is more than one in the room).

But the potential benefits are huge. Even the time saving possibilities for the auditee are appreciated.

 

I totally agree with my Canadian cousin. I would find it most odd to try to audit without "being there". However, do you HAVE to audit all suppliers? Are all "critical" when it comes to performance? I'd be looking at some kind of 80/20 deal to see who need an "audit"...

 

It is "odd" but that's really because it's still a fairly unusual way to conduct an audit. QFO'er's, of all people, should know that change can feel a bit odd...at first. It's like putting your watch on the other wrist, or trying to cross your arms in a manner opposite from the norm.

But, in this day and age of global organizations, global infrastructures, and global communication, e-auditing may be an avenue worth exploring for many.

Still, I think if Gidget is doing this as part of a pilot study, there are several ways to approach this.

1. e-audit all suppliers and come back with feedback on the process, results, value, etc.

2. Random 50-50 split with half of the suppliers being subjected to an e-audit and the other half to an on-site assessment. This allows for a current state comparison of the two approaches regarding process, results, value, etc.. Supplier performance would be irrelevant to the determination of which audit method will be used.

3. Use performance criteria to determine the 80-20 split. 80% are meeting criteria that qualifies them for the "easier" e-audit. The remaining 20%, are not meeting the criteria, and are subject to the more "invasive" on-site assessment. Requires some means for determining the 80-20 split. Still allows for feedback on the process, results, value, etc.

You may also wish to include suppliers in providing feedback - especially if they experienced an e-audit. Not only should it add value to your organization, but hopefully to the supplier, as well.

 

Not that it's a criterion by which to evaluate your use, but the CB accreditation bodies don't really embrace it... It has to be fairly unique circumstances. To me it's like a "long distance relationship"...

 

I'm not certain that's what Roxane is saying, but I'll let her comment. I cannot (yet) see how sitting in a remote location without a significant investment in technology including augmented reality etc, can effectively replace the auditor being physically present at the site of the audit. So much is going to be lost which goes to making auditing effective.

 

The current state of technology does not allow for in-depth virtual/remote auditing, however, it can allow for a certain level of assessing, if only to determine the need/value/prioritization of an on-site, in-person visit. The audit requirements and scope can also impact the method of auditing, as can the very nature of the organization (and processes) being audited.

From an external auditor perspective, we are probably not ready to virtual/remote auditing as a serious option for consideration.

Internally, however, I do consider it to be a feasible option that is influenced heavily by multiple variables such as, but not limited to,:

• Auditor experience;
• Auditee experience;
• Audit scope;
• Organizational expectations and requirements;
• Organizational (and management system) maturity and culture;
• Organizational size and location;
• Product(s) produced and/or service(s) provided; and/or,
• Technology options (i.e., phone lines won't suffice, there needs to be a video option as well as the ability to share screen and effectively provide/show records, documentation, etc.).