| ||
Emphasis, it is increasingly becoming politically correct to say, must be put upon process effectiveness. So much so that many organisations are finding erudite and convincing arguments as to why auditing for compliance need no longer be done at all and that all an organisation now needs to do is to ensure that the effectiveness of their processes are OK! Are there storm clouds on the horizon here? I doubt it, but I do suspect that there is going to be quite a drizzle of misery coming the way of the quality profession! Auditing has two functions: (i) to determine compliance with a defined baseline and (ii) to identify opportunities (either to improve performance or to reduce risk). Now it would seem that auditing has to consider more the effectiveness of the systems and processes that have been put in place and less their compliance with a defined standard. It is unwise to disagree with the notion of effectiveness auditing but it is also unwise to ignore the fact that if an organisation believes it is compliant with the requirements of a standard then it had jolly well check that it is so. That is what auditing does. If auditing has been seen as an expensive pastime with no real advantages or benefit for the organisation then accept the fact and perhaps alter the way you go about it. But don't stop doing it and invent fancy arguments as to why an activity that is not being done is being addressed 'via other means'. This is what is being promoted in some quarters at the moment and at least one accreditation authority ASCB(E), feels it is a dangerous practice. If an organisation looks solely at the effectiveness of its processes how can it meaningfully claim compliance with a standard? Or do they rely only upon the yearly or half yearly visits of a third party certification body to assess compliance? That too may be a dangerous practice as many of these organisations are so concerned about their shrinking customer base that they have shied away from compliance assessment and are focussing more upon "customer orientation" and "partnership in growth" and "pro-active" styles of audit. It is a good thing that the third party certification bodies are starting to consider customer needs but are they not moving away from the whole point of third party certification. It does after all; fall very solidly within the "Conformity Assessment" discipline. If these 3rd parties are now looking less at compliance and more at wishy-washy topics such as process effectiveness are they not just bashing another nail into their own coffins? What is the point of the audit in the 1st instance if it is not to ascertain compliance? If compliance auditing has only covered a small percentage of an organisations activity is it really meaningful and should it result in certificates of compliance being issued? The auditing function is loosing its way a little. The intent of ensuring that what are we doing is what is required should not be sidelined for the sake of a sexy sounding 'advance' that has yet to establish proper baselines for itself let alone for third party certification purposes End (July 2004) |
 |
 |
 |
