Evaluation of Metrics during Internal Audit?

Simple question. Is it a non-conformance if an internal auditor does not review the process metrics during their audit?

 

the nc apply to the audited process not to the auditor.
IMHO, No, only if in the nc is found and it was included in the scope.

If you are auditing the auditing process and the auditor didnt audit metrics which was included in the scope, yes it could be a NC. But If the auditor is auditing one process ,e.g. sales, the metrics will be audited if it is included in the scope, then the nc is declared by the auditor, if metric was not met,but if he missed or forgot to audit the metrics,the only way to detect this failure, it is when the auditing process is revised.
Hope this helps.

 

Not sure. But here is an example. Internal audit of sales. Sales keeps a metric such as hit rate - orders/quotes. Auditor reviews the sales process for conformance to all procedures, standards, etc. but doesn't include the hit rate in his review (because the metric is regularly reviewed during management meetings of which this auditor is a part of). Is this a NC against internal audits?

 

This is a tricky question. For example, if the Sales procedure documents/states that the metrics are reviewed at planned intervals, then internal auditor would need to verify the metrics are correct as per the documented procedure. As part of the 8.2.2 internal audit clause, the internal auditor is reviewing the requirements of the QMS as per the documented procedure. If they have not been reviewed, this would be a NC against internal audits in this case.

 

We've just added a question regarding metrics to our internal audit procedure. So the internal auditors now need to ask about metrics - if it doesn't apply, they make a note of this in their report. That way it is clear that we checked during internal audit.

 

That is basically what we ended up doing. Even though they did look at metrics during the audit, it was "buried" in their report so the 3rd party auditor didn't see it. Sometimes you need to make things super obvious.

 

Couldn't you just have shown the auditor where it was in the report, and you would no longer have a non-conformance?

 

Andy Nichols, we DO have a checklist of sorts for our internal audits - more of a tickler to make sure internal auditors checked all required areas, plus a place to record auditee names, what documents were examined, etc.

 

If I evaluate the Internal Audit procedure or Internal Audit Plan, it would be either a NC or OFI. From my standpoint it would be the NC against the requirements of 8.2.2b or in clause 8.2.2.2 of TS16949. Review of process metrics is a way of determining the effectiveness of the process. How else can you improve the process if you do not measure it.

 

We are a small company. Since I am management and I create/review all of the metrics, I know the answer before the question is even asked. To me it is a question of where the metric is picked up -- internal audit or management review (or somewhere else). There is little to zero value handing me an audit report which shows me a metric which I already know because I calculated the thing.

 

Yes, but I didn't find it until later in the process. It was "buried" in the auditors commentary. Given our company, it was a useless finding.

 

In our case, it is measured. But we are small. I calculate/review the metrics. Those numbers are shared with my staff, who are also my internal auditors. They just didn't "clearly" indicate that they included the metric in their audit. Probably one of the least substantive finding we have had in 15 years.

 

If you do not measure you can't improve.