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
-
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.
- Group items - this could be thematically, per location or per responsibility
- Which facets are relevant? Visualise them:
-
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)
- Assess possible answers for audit points
-
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
- This is subjective
- 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.
- Visual inspection
-
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
-
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.
-
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)
Leave your comments
Post comment as a guest