Auditing Process and Practical Auditing - III

First Party Auditing – A Practical Approach

Universally, it is well known fact that, auditing to be critical to the successful implementation of quality, food safety and environmental management as well as any other system or process management. The same could also be said of just about any managing process that is being implemented - six sigma, lean manufacturing, environmental planning and product stewardship. So what is the right audit approach for you? Here is a one way of conducting audits on a simple concept of first party, second party and third party auditing, describing from practical experience of pros and cons of each and why each type should be included in your own audit approach. The model explained here has more practical aspects for conducting any type of audit.

First Party Auditing

First party auditing is a term with various definitions, but we consider here for standard terms which defines five different types:

Behavior Based Audits

An employee or employees observe other employees performing work and then provide feedback

Layered or Tiered Audits

A manager leads an audit team of individuals from his/her organization. This allows the manager to demonstrate his/her value for quality/ food safety and establish high standards of compliance and performance

Area Audits

The focus is a geographic area of the site

Cross Area Audits

An area audit is performed by auditors drawn from other areas within the site

Focused Audits

The audit concentrates on a single aspect of the quality or food safety management system

A First Party Audit is analogous to writing in the first person when the pronouns “I” (singular) and “we” (plural) are used. Auditing in “first person” is the spirit behind first party auditing where managers and workers audit themselves, observing current conditions, evaluating performance against standards, and deciding what is acceptable and where corrective actions are needed. An audit without participants from the audit area is a different breed of first party audit. One tool that found to be very effective for conducting first party audits is a digital camera, taken along, of course, with the appropriate work permits in hand. Pictures can be worth a thousand words or more. When shared in a leadership team meeting, in a one-on-one counseling session or in an organization-wide quality/food safety meeting, really good pictures do not need further explanation. In the pictographic examples, there was no disputing the unacceptability of the observed conditions. It was also crystal clear to everyone how auditor felt about what was observed and what auditor believed needed to be done to correct the situation.

First go around and within the production facility of your factory and take some pictures which are clear violations of quality/food safety and, as an additional training exercise, you can spent time in a group setting attempting to identify as many corrective actions as possible from what was visible in the pictures.

Another technique is to teach the organization in a quality/food safety meeting the lessons auditor has learned about auditing.

Best Practices of Auditing

Know what you are looking for;

Know the standard you are comparing against;

Be prepared;

Get close to the source and make the observation first hand;

Touch the actual permit or procedure;

See the field observation with your eye, take a picture;

Get physically close to what you are auditing. Get down on your knees. Climb the stairs or the stationary ladder;

Make a record of your observations, including the location, so that future corrective action is properly directed;

Look for anything and everything that is not 100% correct;

Find an expert and ask questions as to what should be correct;

Correct as many of the observations as possible on the spot;

An interactive observation process is an effective first party audit approach for creating positive interactions while identifying at-risk behaviors and correcting them. It is intended to deliver direct, positive reinforcement and reinforce acceptable standards.

Considering behaviour audits, it is a 30-minute observation of people working in the site which will provide practical aspects and real behaviours of operators:

A key indicator of the level of quality/food safety management in that area

An activity that motivates employees and increases quality/food safety awareness

A positive experience

Just a job for the quality/ food safety office

What type of contract do you believe would be appropriate for these persons?

All of the principles that apply to quality/food safety auditing also apply to first party auditing of quality/food safety management.  At the same time, there are numerous differences. The largest single difference is that unsafe quality/food safety behaviors and conditions are not as readily observed.

There are series of questions that leaders can ask during routine, informal first party audit interactions with employees with respect to QMS/FSMS/EMS or PSM.

Here are some Questions regards to a PSM audit, their knowledge, and their degree of compliance. A few appropriate questions include:

Can operators or maintenance technicians show how they access the most up-to-date P&ID’s and/or equipment inspection histories?

Has the individual participated in any recent PSM activities?

An incident investigation?

A PSSR?

A procedure review?

An audit?

Have there been any recent changes in Standard Operating Conditions, Alarm Set Points or Interlock Set Points?

Were they approved and documented? Were the operating personnel trained on the changes?

Does a control room technician know the safe operating limits of the plant and the consequences if operated outside those limits?

Is the control room technician currently operating the facility with any interlocks by-passed? If so, was the by-pass procedure appropriately followed?

Is the control room technician aware of any work going on in the plant so that he/she can alert people to any process emergency? Any hot work in progress?

On larger sites, it is often more meaningful to conduct audits across areas or units. In these situations, members of management or other knowledgeable subject matter experts perform audits in units outside their own area of responsibility.

The strength of the cross-area audit is that auditors bring new and different perspectives into the area being audited. In addition, they might also be interested in site level resources with advanced knowledge and training. An added plus is that the audit team members learn how others are addressing the same food safety or quality challenges they likely face in their own units.

It is true that one of the weaknesses of first party auditing is the potential that a less than rigorous and comprehensive audit will be performed. This could come from a desire to reduce the resulting work load, to feel better about the progress made to date or to protect the leader or team from scrutiny about their poor performance. Auditors must display strong leadership and commitment in order to conduct meaningful first party audits. However, that the best performers are also the best first party auditors, even within their own area of responsibility. The best performers demand brutal honesty, have often studied more and have achieved a higher level of subject matter expertise.  The best performers place the integrity of the managing system and its efficacy before any individual friendship or ego. Thus, the best performers also perform the best first party audits. There is no any reservation relying upon first party audit results that are performed by the best performers and leaders in their own area of accountability.

When there are concerns, they are concentrated on the first party audits performed by the lesser performers. So maybe the best way to strengthen the effectiveness of a facility’s first party audit program is to upgrade the caliber of the individuals who are performing the audits rather than changing the programs or relying more heavily on second or third party audits.

You need to counsel all leaders who are striving to improve their unit’s quality/food safety performance to:

Become involved in the audit program’s design,

Learn the standards and procedures that are basis for the audit, and

Make time on their calendars to personally participate in formal and informal first party audits.

The strengths of first party auditing include:

The ability to be conducted at any time and in whatever frequency the situation demands

Direct involvement by leaders, since audits force leaders to learn the standards

Enables establishing high standards of performance

Uncovering issues easily and quickly correcting them

Offering a less formal and often, less threatening approach

In contrast, the limitations of first party auditing include:

Leanings are limited by what you don’t know

One’s biased; self-serving interpretation influenced by our human tendency can accentuate the positive while de-emphasizing the negative

Heightened procrastination

All units should have a robust first party audit program, culture and mindset.

Overall, it should be the fundamental driver of an organization’s continuous improvement process.

Audit Pros and Cons

Pros    Flexible Scheduling

Direct leader involvement

Less formal/threatening

Immediate response

Cons   Limited learning

Biased reporting

Easily procrastinated