Top Editors ... An introduction to auditing

Title: An introduction to auditing
Date: 30/01/2007
Autor: By Gill Palmer

"Compared with a major recall or production failure, a wellconducted audit is
merely a temporary imposition on a busy working day"

For some in the food industry, the idea of an audit may already come with negative feelings attached. It can sometimes seem like the purpose of an audit is to find fault, to discover secrets you’d prefer to keep hidden,
or otherwise to find problems where none actually exist. Indeed, where an auditor is untrained, poorly skilled, or unable to define properly the terms and scope of the audit, or where the factory is ill-prepared, badly managed
or failing to set and follow appropriate standards, these negative feelings may well be justified and borne out by the audit process.
However, when an audit is conducted well by a skilled auditor, it is more likely to become an opportunity to improve existing processes and systems, and a way to prevent the kind of problem that could seriously damage a business.
After all, compared with a major recall or production failure, a wellconducted audit is merely a temporary imposition on a busy working day.

What is an audit?
It is true, of course, that an audit is, ‘A systematic and independent examination to determine whether quality activities and related results comply with planned arrangements and whether these arrangements are implemented effectively and are suitable to achieve objectives’.
So an audit may identify faults and shortcomings in whatever activity is under study. However, the outcome of the audit should not only report negative points but also positive findings. This will ensure a balanced outcome and provides the opportunity for the company to implement corrective and preventative actions in order to achieve improvement.
Audit outcomes will vary, of course, depending on the focus of the audit, and whilst a generic definition of an audit is entirely appropriate, that does not mean there is only one type.
Audits fall into three main categories, depending on purpose. Systems audits are used to assess how well the systems work within an organisation and whether the way the company operates is both effective and efficient. The second type is where an audit is limited to compliance. This tends to be simpler than a systems audit but allows the company to evaluate whether the business is complying with its own defined processes and procedures. In reality, many audits are a combination of systems and compliance audits.
The third type of audit is an investigative audit, in which audit skills are used to collect information to allow the business to find out why something has gone wrong.

Many standards
There are also many different standards against which the audit might be conducted. These might be sector specific such as the BRC Global Food standard or NPFASAFE, or more generic as in the case of ISO9001:2000. In addition, there may be guidelines to the standards that might need to be taken into account, such as ISO15161:2001, the document that provides interpretation of ISO9001:2000 for the food industry.
Although there are common features to all of these standards, clearly it is important that the auditor is aware of the differences, and able to conduct the audit appropriate to the relevant standard. This is true at whatever level the audit is being conducted.
Some training in auditing skills is necessary to equip personnel to carry out even a relatively simple internal audit. For those required to conduct more extensive audits, more thorough training is available, perhaps leading to a relevant qualification and registration with the International Register of Certificated Auditors (IRCA). Such training is
readily available at every level, as indicated in the panel at the end.

In-house auditing
This observation about training indicates that audits need not only be something imposed by customers, but may also be applied as an inhouse exercise. A first party audit, carried out in-house by appropriately trained staff, can often be used by the business to drive improvement.
The same is true of second party audits (e.g. a customer auditing a supplier) or third party audits (carried out by an organisation that is independent of both supplier and customer) but, of course, the focus here is usually on compliance issues.
For both the auditor and the facility being audited it is important to understand the scope and purpose of the audit in order to prepare thoroughly. Theoretically, the facility should have little preparation to do for the audit as the standards required should be in place and being effectively met at all times. It should not be a case of trying to do something special in order to perform well during an audit, since the auditor can request historical records and procedural documentation to verify that best practice has been followed consistently.
So preparation for the facility is primarily about ensuring the auditor will be able to access the information they will need to be able to assess the facility’s operation against the specified standard.
For the auditor, especially the customer or third party auditor unfamiliar with the facility, the preparation should involve a desktop review to become acquainted with the area to be audited, and a review of any available documentation.

The audit process
Whether the audit is due to cover the entire facility or some specific aspect of production, it’s important that both parties should understand its extent and scope. It may be stating the obvious, but this should be agreed and acknowledged before the audit begins. To be performed correctly, auditing is intended to be a fair activity without any ‘hidden agendas’.
At the same time, the auditor should be able to give an outline of the documentation, equipment he/she will need to see, and the personnel that should be available for interview. Even at the start of the audit process it should be possible to indicate when the audit will end.
Whilst the audit process should be structured in a formal way so as to stay within the agreed scope and to restrict itself to the requirements of the relevant standard, that does not mean that the auditor will have no flexibility in the way the audit is conducted. Every auditor should be professional and technically competent, trained to an appropriate standard, ideally with an auditing qualification. Yet, undoubtedly, every auditor will bring different skills and experience to the audit process, and that will give rise to different ways of dealing with people and information.
However, it should not alter the conclusions of the audit. Whereas one auditor might use interviews as the prime means of assessing the situation, another might reach the same conclusion by observation or through reference to
documentation. In reality, auditors tend to use a combination of techniques in carrying out their task in order to understand and confirm exactly how the facility operates.
They should always seek to obtain ‘objective evidence’ to support any points they wish to raise in their report.

Bringing about improvements
The end of the ‘visible’ part of an audit, during which time the auditor is actively collecting information, is often seen as the end of the audit. However, the activities that take place after the audit are all important in making it effective. The auditor should prepare a report to formalise the points raised. The department or company audited should then consider what actions need to be taken to address these points. For internal audits, the company needs to ensure it has the disciplines in place to respond appropriately to audit findings, to take corrective and preventative actions to prevent recurrence and to then ensure the actions taken are verified to provide assurance that the original point has been addressed successfully. In this way, audits can be a very effective tool in the company for driving continuous improvement.
It is a pity, therefore, that many companies do not realise the full benefit of audits, and fail to appreciate the value that a skilled auditor can add to an organisation.
Having skilled auditors available inhouse would both assist in continuous improvement and also in preparing for external audits when these are required. Far from being an imposition associated with negative consequences, audits should be seen for what they are: a very valuable business tool.

For more information, contact Gill Palmer, RSSL. Tel: +44 (0)118 986 8541; Email: enquiries@rssl.com

This article was reproduced with permission from Food & Beverage
International (copyright Haydon Jackson Publishing Ltd)