Details

Published: 13 May 2014 13 May 2014

Please Rate Vote 1 Vote 2 Vote 3 Vote 4 Vote 5  

Looking to create a great audit? You'll need to keep a few things in mind. In short, you should be using the CACHET method:

• Concrete
• Analysis
• Checks
• Hierarchy
• Evaluate
• Tasks

 

1. CONCRETE: Define what you want to audit or evaluate.

   • Which facets are relevant? Visualise them:
     • e.g. using a mindmap
     • you could start from an existing checklist
     • Envolve people with practical experience. It makes your audit more realistic and increases support for the audit.
     • Find all relevant legislation
     • Find all existing internal procedures
   • Add structure
     
     • Group items - this could be thematically, per location or per responsibility
       • Eg. Quickscan of a classroom versus an audit on ergonomics
     • Make sure the audit stays structured. When creating a paper audit, avoid "jump to" questions if possible.
     • Are you using a digital tool (e.g. SafetyCultures iAuditor), you can take advantage of smart fields and dynamic fields.

2. ANALYSE: Do the assessment

   • Assess possible answers for audit points
     • e.g. Yes/No: Is this ladder compliant with the ANSI ASC 14 standard?
     • e.g. Hoe often does one have to work on in the asbestuous space?
       • Continuously
       • Daily
       • Weekly
       • Monthly
       • Less
     • e.g. Calculated result: Are there enough toilets, based on the number of students in the facility?
     • Keep in mind the limitations of your system (e.g. iAuditor can't generate calculated fields at this moment)
   • Envolve experienced people (can't repeat this enough)

3. CHECKING: How do you decide if something validates?

   • Visual inspection
     • This is only a snapshot of the current moment
     • If the audit is announced, the situation will probably be "optimized"
     • This requires a certain degree of competence
   • Documents as evidence
     • This is only a snapshot of a moment in the past
     • Is there only one document, or is therer a history of documents that show continuity?
     • Are the documents signed? By both executer and responsible?
     • Is the executer known?
     • Is it clear what the document illustrates?
     • Were there any remarks? Was there a follow-up on these?
   • Querying the envolved persons
     • This is subjective
       • The phrasing of the question can mitigate this partially
       • This doesn't mean it's wrong.
     • It's essential to target the right persons
   • Is there a system of quality assurance?
     • Is there a clear roadmap?
     • Is it sufficient?
     • Is it actually used and obeyed?
   • Sworn statement
     
     • Should be last resort
     • Be sure to register name and date
     • Aim for the highest person in the hierarchy
     • As a written and signed statement, this can be authorative.

4. HIERARCHY: Make sure the right people actually sign the document:

   • performer of the audit
   • auditee (all persons who answered questions or supporting comments)
   • persons with decisive authority (e.g. CEO)
   • All persons whose oral statement are embedded

5. EVALUATE: An audit is only an audit.

   • An audit is only a tool.
   • A (different) skilled eye may see other good solutions or priorities
   • An audit only makes sense if the results end up with the right person
     • Discuss the audit with a person with enough authority over all fields of the audit. This could be a department chief, the CEO or any other person in the chain of command.

6. TASKS: A great audit should lead to actions

   • Make sure all required and suggested actions are clearly visible.
   • Who has jurisdiction to take decisions around a specific action?
   • Possibly offer suggestions or solutions to reported issues.
   • If the audit gets evaluated with the decision makers
     • What actions will be taken?
     • What's the deadline?
     • By whom? (who will perform the action?)
     • Who will follow this up? (supervisor)

• Next