I sometimes wonder why our management is so fond of audits. Apart from those necessary for various certification of ISO, such as for QMS, OHSAS and AMS. Every times a new section is formed, new QP is introduced there will be new teams of auditors. The thinking seems to be that audit can solved all their problems, or is it the section head just love the authority the auditing section enjoyed, since audit reports goes all the way up to the top?
Internal audits were supposed to ensure compliance with the particular ISO standard, be it QMS, OHSAS or AMS. The purpose is to review control, identify flaws and make improvement to processes and manage control. But unfortunately, that’s does not seems to be the case. We have too many auditors from different fields repeatedly auditing the same Work Instruction (WI), and too few are doing thing that resulted in significant improvement or positive changes.
Our internal auditors seem overenthusiastic in their fascination or obsession in fault detection. More often than not, some of these auditors would move into the field of technicality that were not their expertise to troubleshoot the work processes, instead of checking on compliance to procedure or with the relevant ISO standard. They would imposed their opinion based on their whim, and filled up as observation of improper practice or non-compliance.
Audits were in fact sample of events from a specific period. The outcomes need careful analysis, condemning the whole WI because of a single errant worker, a misstep or event seems an overkill. The system should reduce complexity and be able to recognize opinion and /or preferences from statutory standard or mandatory requirement. Auditors (Opinion owners) need to share content and principles and not impose their preferences or opinion as statutory standard or mandatory requirement. The audits should take reference from ISO objectives. Auditors should know the true purpose of the WI.
Ever heard the story about a boy, his Ah Kong and the donkey? The story goes like this; The boy and his Ah Kong went to the market to buy a donkey. The two of them happily rode on the donkey to go home. Along the way, some passer-by saw and commented: So cruel, 2 person riding one poor donkey. Ah Kong was embarrassed, so he dismounted and let the boy rode alone. On the way, another passer-by saw and commented: Inconsiderate young man, enjoying his ride and make the poor old man walks. Now the boy felt embarrassed, he dismounted and help Ah Kong up the donkey to ride alone. Few paces later, yet another passer-by saw and commented: Selfish old man riding alone, and let poor little boy walk. Ah Kong felt bad, he dismounted from the donkey. Ah Kong think and think, and decided that there is no point of having the donkey if whichever way they use it is going to invite negative reaction . So he sold away the donkey and enjoy their peaceful walk home.
Our Work Instructions (WI) suffered the same fate. Auditors auditing same WI, using their perceived standards often achieved different outcomes and their finding and opinions were so polarized. Difference auditor finding different issues and probably proudly believed that he did a more thorough job. Sometimes, even the same auditor take different issue in same subject of the same WI during different period of audit, or when they report to different boss. (E.g. years ago, an auditor argued that all fasteners tightening torque value need to be accompanied with tolerances. So in order to close the issue, we include tolerances and updated our WI. Then not long ago, the same auditor commented the tolerances are not required, the exact figures recommended in the manual should be enough and less confusing. In order to avoid being labelled defensive and also not to offend the mighty auditor, we obliged, because their report went all the way to the top, so we were often reminded. (Figuratively, the demand for correction was delivered like an edict from an emperor to us, doesn’t matter if it was delivered through the eunuch or whoever. 🙂 )
In truth, most audits seem to be based on our auditor fascination or obsession in submitting an impressive report with plenty of findings. Maybe they were trying hard to impress the bosses that they are able to locate bones in every egg. So, there is always some kind of findings, so much so that people on the upper echelon think our WI sucks big time. Eventually, the new department boss decided to chuck away all the WI which have passed relevant ISO certification audit by professional auditor, and which have served us for 20 over years, and re-create new ones. A massive exercise was conducted, new methodology was introduced, FAT and gap analysis were used, production works were delayed, in the hope of creating the PERFECT WI that missed nothing. A new format was also introduced to beautify it. An original 10 over pages WI was so well enhanced that it became a 100 over pages booklet.
Whew! Nice, but would the workers have the times to go through it in their daily routines?
Anyway, just when the team were about to celebrate their accomplishment, some smart aleck announced that for the ease of auditing, standardization is needed, and so they created a new format and instruction was passed down that all WI shall migrate to the new format.
Phew! another massive exercise, feel it’s a waste of time, but also have to comply.
The latest development that I know of, sound rather logical. Just like what Ah Kong did to avoid negative comments, (i.e. he got rid of the donkey and get back to walking), a decision was out to rescind WI, and just follow the work instruction in Maintenance Manual provided by Equipment Manufacturer or Train builder. This may sound logical for people on top, but in practice, it may create problem for the people who actually needed the WI. Maintenance Manual compiled by Manufacturers consist of tons of information regarding the product. The procedure of maintenance were sometimes jumbled in various section of the thick manual between explanation of operation, working principles and purposes. To get to the instruction of specific task, one may need to flip the manual back and forth and search between paragraphs.
In a nutshell, there seems to be a lack of understanding of the fundamental purpose of WI, and some big messed up of roles of support services. Support teams instead of providing supports to allow focus on core maintenance business, preferred the lucrative auditing job (plenty of credits to collect, high in authority and low chance of accountability). As a result, instead of focusing on core maintenance business, we were often distracted by avalanches of audit related task, preparation and paper works.
———————————
The way I see it: Paradox or flexibility?
An organization that bragged about transparency,
but ‘within 4 walls’ being reminded frequently.
Got an elaborated Organization Chart,
but roles are based on argument to discharge.
Got a Training Institute established,
but resource for training is never ready.
Line trainers were then taken to form a Training Office,
but sadly end up as one that shun training duty.
Got Safety Services, which enthusiasm is in showbiz,
but shy to participate or to provide on-site service.
Set up a Quality Assurance Section,
but out-going work quality check is not their concern.
To help manage the plentiful asset,
Asset Management Office was thought to be the key,
But instead is just another auditing unit.
Burdening us with increasing reporting frequency.
Everyone wants the watchdog duty,
One that point finger at others for accountability.
They direct their focus on creating red tapes,
and practices authoritarian bureaucracy.
If you are going to fight, try against any other authority,
Never ever against bureaucracy,
At least there is some chance of winning,
But dare you to dream of defeating bureaucracy.
Everyone interest is in auditing,
all queueing for it and always digging.
WIs were being scrutinized for 30 years,
now thoroughly screw up and creating anxiety.
Boss claimed headcount being increasing nicely,
but fact shows perpetual shortage for core duty.
Maybe the increase was for the higher priority,
that is, feeding the expanding bureaucracy.
We have plenty of meetings,
where individual dare not voice their thinking,
for the fear of being ostracized for opposing,
does exist as is the real thing.
Meetings reprise paradox of Abilene trip by a family,
where effectiveness is traded for harmony.
Then when breakdown happened, ironically,
everyone became the jury.
KPI was set to measure performance,
but appraisal is based on authority influence.
Accomplishment and productivity aside,
Bosses met to bid for people they like.
No intention of smearing or being nasty,
Just sorting bit and pieces of a dinosaur’s memory.
Don’t mean to offend, just sharing what I thought I see,
and reflecting on reality and dream of ideology.