Rank: Super forum user
|
New Year, new question- are we trying to catch people out?
What I mean is when we do audits/inspections etc we usually give people a few days notice so that they can get their paperwork in order; appoint a local guide to show us around etc.
Of courser this means that they also have a tidy up, move stuff around (and in few cases all go off for “an important team meeting”).
I have said that I not that bothered by this since I know that this is a way of getting their house in order.
But some people in management say that this is giving a false picture of what is going on and that we need to do more surprise visits. That way we can catch people out doing the naughty thongs that some suspect that they are upto.
I have my doubts about this approach- just turning up will not necessarily establish what is going on- you really need input form managers and they like to find out who is doing what etc.
It will also breed hostility; in effect we will become the Health and Safety police looking to catch people out and setting them up for disciplinary procedures. (My opinion is that it is the responsibility of managers to manage the staff and if staff are not following rules etc then they should be dealing with this not the SHE team.)
So the question is what do you do: surprise visits to catch people out or planned notified inspections involving management?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A Kurdziel wrote:...........But some people in management say .... that we need to do more surprise visits.
That way we can catch people out doing the naughty thongs .................
What are you - "the clothes police"?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi A Kurdziel,
Why not have the best of both worlds and do a series of planned informed inspections and throw in one or two unplanned as well.
It wouldn't hurt to communicate the fact well in advance; that you will be planning to start surprise inspections, but the how and when will remain a unknown.
That way you are giving them notice of the change and it will not seem like you are deliberately trying to catch anybody out, and at the same time you may get a more honest reflection.
Good luck.
Pete
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Alan Haynes wrote:A Kurdziel wrote:...........But some people in management say .... that we need to do more surprise visits.
That way we can catch people out doing the naughty thongs .................
What are you - "the clothes police"?
Well spotted- give the man a banana
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I do a bit of both.
Remind people that audits are about finding compliance, not non-compliance.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A competent auditor will be able to identify what we refer to as "wet-paint" i.e. an action that was undertaken at the last minute to close a non-conformance or an auditable item.
My view is that the primary purpose of the audit is compliance and support the auditable facility/area for improvements where there is non-compliance.
It is management and leadership failure if they want to use the audit process to "catch people doing naughty things"
If the management concern is justified by evidence, then an unannounced audit could identify weaknesses, but local supervision and management should be aware of the shortcomings and should be putting things right with senior management support,
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I would say that both schedules and unscheduled audits/inspections have a part to play in any system, and both will help you to achieve compliance against your set standards. This assumes that you have set some, as otherwise it is difficult to manage something that isn’t measureable.
The potential for hostility or confrontation can be managed by the approach taken by the auditor/inspector; this can take some practice/experience. Cliché as it is, it is not what you say but the way that you say it.
Ask the “what if” question, suggest alternatives or methods of improving a situation, provide guidance, be supportive, highlight the positives (assuming there are some).
Considered and careful use of language, in particular that which you commit to paper and circulate, will make the difference between creating a positive working relationship and making progress, or making an enemy.
Right, I have to pop off home to change my underwear! I didn’t realise that audit would be checking for naughty thongs either :-)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I do a bit of both. If I know I’m going to need some of the manager’s time I let them know in advance so they can plan their time. It’s not catching them out, it is helping them manage. When you audit / inspect you will see things which they have become blind to. One manager actually welcomed my unannounced visits as it keeps him on his toes. Not only the tone either, but they way you then go forward. What can WE do to put this right, make this better. Ok in reality it is them that has to do whatever, but sometimes it is nice to discuss the issues. Sometimes in H&S you can feel like you are in the corner on your own, do you think other managers don’t feel the same, so welcome help or constructive criticism. They may have wanted to do things differently or be unaware of what is actually happening themselves and have now gained allies. I think it is partly if they see the audits / inspections as a waste of time or useful.
If they can put right whatever may be wrong in the period of notice you give, things can not be all bad (anyone get the workplace cleaned up / sorted out before an external audit – Yeah thought not). However it is easy to only do the right thing as the H&S bod will be here today.
So I think a bit of both is worthwhile, but you are bound to alienate someone
PS are there thongs which are not naughty? That is one thorough inspection you carry out, is there a naughtiness scale? To be honest I don’t fancy checking this where I work announced or otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Audits should be about 'continual improvement', not just compliance/non-compliance (see current version of ISO 9001 and the other linked MS Standards for the background). To achieve this, both auditors and auditees have to be familiar with the selected 'audit standard' - so 'catching people out' doesn't really enter into the process.
As Jay says, a competent auditor will quickly tease out which practices are truly embedded in the way things are normally done, and which may have been adopted specially for the audit. An effective audit (as distinct from an Inspection) is resource-intensive for both parties, so planning and agreement about the right time to do it is essential.
In contrast, structured and unstructured Inspections should be part of 'management by walking about', and an element in doing that effectively is to cover the less obvious workplaces and groups, including all shifts, remote workers, etc. and not necessarily to warn everyone you are coming.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Totally agree with imwaldra
Audits are intended to check that systems are working as they are supposed to. If you happen to catch someone doing something wrong during an audit it is a clear indication that systems are failing. I would suggest this is flagged up as a management rather than an individual failure.
It does frustrate me that a lot of people view audit and inspection as the same thing. Part of audit should be to collect evidence that inspections are taking place and are effective at dealing with issues.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A Kurdziel -- are you an independent ISO auditor or a Health & Safety Inspector?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
neither
a H&S adviser rather than a consultant
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I agree with IMW and AndyB.
Audits should be part of a measurement system to give management an objective assessment of where they are on the path to their stated objectives. They are absolutely nothing to do with catching people out so there is no reason to do them unannounced. If managers ‘feel’ that people are doing naughty things then they should go look for themselves! After all, they are responsible for assuring OSH in their areas, are they not?
Unannounced compliance checks by an audit team of those outside the immediate line are a different part of any programme. I think have only a limited general use. They will be seen by many as intrusive and demonstrating a lack of trust. If they are required due to the state of play then they should be done by direct line management. e.g one manager checks another patch. The audit would then measure the effectiveness of those checks
p48
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Nicely worded Pete48, I'm a qualified internal quality auditor (ISO 9001) and OHSAS auditor/lead auditor (18001) so my audits vary across the business from aircraft maintenance quality audits to auditing our on site facilities maintenance contractors and caterers. My policy is that all audits are contained within the annual audit plan which all Line Managers and contractors can access on the company intranet site, that will tell them which month in the coming year they will be audited but as a courtesy I advise the various departments via memo and verbal brief of the proposed date of audit usually at least one week in advance, which will identify the scope of the audit. I have never conducted a "No Notice" audit but have conducted "No Notice" inspections in areas (Catering) where previous audits have highlighted concerns but these no notice inspections have been briefed as part of the original audit debrief with the concerned manager. So, yes they are unannounced but should be expected. Audits are not a tool for catching people out but a system of gathering evidence to support an organizations claims that they are doing what they claim to be doing against a set standard. Auditing is an important function in maintaining Quality/Safety standards but its not foolproof, they have to be conducted in a professional unbiased manner and I feel that subjecting "No Notice" audits internally would erode the confidence and working relationship between the Quality/Safety function within an organization and the operational side of the business. We have reporting systems in place (Confidential or otherwise) whereby individuals can report concerns which will immediately launch an internal investigation if warranted, so auditing is an important tool but its not the only one.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Audits are a snapshot in time of how the company is managing their systems, the audit schedule should be clearly comunicated, so everyone is aware when their related sections are to be visited, so that they can alocate resource to manage the audit. I agree with malcarleton, that a few days a reminder is sent. But this isn't to give them time to get their bit in order. It's important that audits are conducted in an open manner, there are usually a number of underlying issues if a problem is encountered, and these need to be addressed.
Either the system works or it doesn't. If it doesn't, for whatever reason it needs to be fixed.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I always start with pre-planned audits, weeks notice, everyone involved, etc.
If that works and safety standards & performance are good, that continues.
If standards or performance slip then continue with planned but include adhhoc with no advanced notice.
Between the 2 approaches you will get a good idea of what's happening.
That said audits are an assurance tool - something to examine that you are doing what you said you would - not a fault finding exercise. When they are viewed as the latter the become ineffective and can produce negative views towards the programme and process.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
As has been highlighted, audits should be used to determine if the system is being upheld and that it is actually working. No problem with that.
Surprise inspections or in my case, depot observations as we call them is another matter.
I was in the plant hire industry (now retired) with multiple depots scattered all around the UK and while each location has a person who is in charge of the depot, in most cases they are not managers and even in the cases where they are they do not necessarily uphold the company's values as far as health and safety goes.
Like it or not, in that environment these observations are essential.
This is not only in order to monitor the safety practices of the employees but also to ensure the managers are doing their part.
While I did not go into a depot trying to catch people out, the reality is that I often did and when I did there was always a conversation had with both the perpetrator and their manager.
Did they always like it? actually no they didn't but do we not do our job then because some of the employees might not like it?
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.