When someone is very dear to you, it is difficult and awkward to openly acknowledge their defects.  One usually finds themselves apologetic because, like it or not, there is a certain amount of disappointment that comes with the territory of being flawed.  No amount of sugar coating makes it painless for the bearer or receiver of the bad news.   Now, imagine the “dear” thing is your quality management system and it is your job to put it under a microscope solely for the purpose of finding its flaws.  Such is the process known as the internal audit.

Conducting an internal audit is an inimitable experience for any company.  The quality management system is based upon a company’s exclusive operations and procedures, and when designed around an ISO standard, there are rigorous criteria to adhere to in order to stay in conformance.  Furthermore, ISO standards cover a large scope in great detail and yet remain highly interpretative so as to be flexible in application.   It is not an overstatement to say there is much depth to the complexity of the internal audit. 

Section 8.2.2 of AS 9100 C, Internal Audit states:  “The selection of auditors and conduct of audits shall ensure objectivity and impartiality of the audit process.  Auditors shall not audit their own work.”  We were very diligent when building the quality management system and particularly so when defining areas of operation and assigning process owners.  As required, auditing duties are scheduled well in advance and process owners are listed to assure there is no conflict with their own work.  This may be the most straightforward part of the internal audit process.  While it clearly defines who does what and when, it does not define the components of impartial analysis – something very necessary for providing objective evidence of conformity and nonconformity.

So how do we ensure objectivity?    We know it’s crucial and yet staying on that noble path is far easier said than done.  As we have discovered, it is difficult as shop managers not to be influenced by our own involvement.   In a small company, operations, like water, flow over their respective areas into other areas.   Above all, it’s critical for management to be knowledgeable of all operations and process relationships to make certain there are checks and balances in place.  Meanwhile, in the normal course of doing business, the lines of demarcation can become blurry.

One of many articles I read during our training period stated that companies who’s management is very involved in the quality management system from inception to culmination were often more successful.  The basis here is simple:  When management is fully engaged, the relationship of process input to performance output becomes very real in terms of profit.  I don’t think anyone could be more engaged than us.  We practically lived inside our quality management system while we built it and we clearly see the relationship of its success to the company’s success.  But to be honest and upfront, as much as we thought we understood the process of internal auditing, it was not until we initially conducted one that we realized the large role objectivity plays. 

I might be going out on a limb here, but it’s my thought that the very thing that makes it difficult to be objective – in our case, attachment – is also the impetus for assuring that we are objective.   An internal audit is an accurate picture of the company’s strengths and weaknesses and it is one of the most powerful tools for meeting customer expectations with greater consistency.  Who would not want this for the company?  With the amount of pressure on most small businesses these days, being incredibly tuned into the company’s strengths and weaknesses is a paramount position for sustainability and success.  Perhaps it is the “fear factor”, but it works because so much is riding on it. 

ISO 9001 clause 8.2.2 states as follows:   “An audit program shall be planned, taking into consideration the status and importance of the processes and areas to be audited, as well as the results of previous audits”.  This requirement directs our focus on processes that have problems occurring in the past and/or problems that are likely to occur again (and may in fact be repetitive by their very nature).  Therefore, areas of high risk or non conformities take priority when auditing.  The beauty of following the standard is that it alleviates the burden of defensiveness so often accompanying hard work.  Here we are encouraged to take a knife and scalpel to the work, dissecting its flaws because that is what makes it great in the long run.   We can let out a huge sigh of relief while taking aim, knowing it’s for the best.

Internal Auditing is a fine art.  As we continue adherence to our quality management system, we will gain more skill and knowledge in the practice of internal auditing to make sure it is effective in its function.  The bottom line is improvement of employee competence, process effectiveness and prevention of problems, continued customer satisfaction, and above all, quality of product.  The energy spent creating from the inside only performs well when you can take a critical look from the outside.   

The reward resides in the evolution of the work itself.