The use and abuse of audit checklists
Quality system auditing is sometimes derided as a “tick and flick” exercise, in which an auditor uses a checklist to guide the audit. This has been debated often in the quality profession and business community.
The previous (1994) edition of the ISO 9001 standard was based on 20 elements, a large enough number to warrant the use of a checklist. This gave rise to the criticism that in some cases a company’s quality system was passed once an auditor was satisfied all 20 elements were present. Unfortunately, this approach overlooked the need for the auditor to make an assessment of the system as a whole, a point not lost on detractors of quality assurance auditing.
Now, with a revised edition of ISO 9001 emphasising the process approach to auditing, the Audit Practice Group has issued guidance on the use of checklists. The APG, an international forum established to promote discussion about quality system auditing, says checklists are “just one tool in the auditor’s toolbox”.
Checklists, the APG notes:
- promote planning for the audit;
- ensure a consistent auditing technique;
- act as a sampling plan and time manager;
- serve as a memory aid;
- provide a repository for notes collected during the audit process;
- provide a structure for the audit; and
- provide a means of communication and place to record data for future use.
However, if checklists are not prepared for the specific audit, they may be restrictive and not reflect the system. The sight of a checklist-wielding auditor, the APG notes, may intimidate the auditee. Another disadvantage of a checklist is that a generic list may not add any value and may interfere with the audit. A narrow-focused checklist might minimise the opportunity for a unique assessment of the quality system.
The APG concludes that auditors should assess the value of a checklist and consider it as a functional tool, but not rely on it as a crutch.
At Quality Award Partners ®, we teach, practise and endorse a flexible process oriented approach, based on the development of risk-based issues lists, and application of the risk-based Positive Audit ® method. Contact us for more information.
Note that for those companies who supply the automotive industry, and are using the TS16949 standard, the controlling body (AIAG) mandate under Sanctioned Interpretation SI 04 04 (New, adopted April 2004) that "t he Automotive Process Approach to auditing for ISO/TS 16949:2002 must not be driven by a "clause" or a "section" driven checklist". The things that should be covered are also included in this interpretation; you can click through to the AIAG from the Quality Award Partners ® "Links" page, accessible from www.qap.com.au.