Rank: Super forum user 
|
Recently I had been asked to conduct the above which is 'bread and butter' for me. Usually, the client is keen that the audit portrays an independent subjective account of compliance and good / bad practices on site.
This client has made it clear that he is 'close to' the Principal Contractor (PC), to the extent that, when I suggested a date to conduct the audit, the client asked the PC when it would be most convenient to him...... Tuesday PM was the response!
Needless to say the site was spotless but, alarmingly I was greeted by the client and PC and advised by both that they had been around the site that morning already and everything was tickety boo?
That information and other similar examples of 'straight jacketing' behaviour continued through the audit, making the audit increasingly awkward and difficult to conduct. Review of the documentation was more a case of watching the client and PC satisfy themselves that all was in order, subsequently the audit report had to reflect the lack of autonomy / ability to carry out the audit properly and independently.
Has anyone else experienced this 'client led' type of interference / suppression?
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
SP900308 wrote: the .... audit portrays an independent subjective account of compliance... Cheers
You meant objective of course.
Objectivity more or less dictates that you refer to the client actions and suggest that the observations and behaviours as witnessed may not be representative?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Ron, not quite sure what you mean but I mean the audit is based on MY interpretation of what I see before my eyes (subjective) with no parameters or audit scope set by the client.
Unless I'm missing something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Think Ron means you stick..'from the actions on the day they were putting on a show or this was not representative behaviour' in your report...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Steve, Ron - I'm with you, sorry!
Yes, the report did reflect my inability to conduct the audit properly. Mostly a waste of time and pretty disheartening for this safety and health practitioner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
An objective view is an impartial one, without bias.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
As an insurance surveyor it was quite commonplace to be "shepherded" around a site by the client's broker. However, experience and searching questions and examination of records could usually get round the difficulties presented. It was sometimes patently obvious that special efforts had been made to tidy up or create a good impression.
Conversely some clients looked on the experience as free advice and welcomed the input from an external pair of eyes.
I was told early in my training that the surveyors opinion was generally the most-read (only-read?) part of any report and always remembered that lesson. It was the opportunity to present a valuable personal overview.
Of course, when I was a broker's surveyor I did my best to shield my client's bad practices from the insurers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Are you thinking that it is not possible to independently (subjectively or objectively) audit under pre-arranged conditions and by being accompanied/led by local personnel? As long as it clear that is what you are doing then where is the issue? If, however, your brief is to provide unannounced audits to check compliance in 'normal' conditions then you have been 'shepherded'! But check that is what the client really wants as confusion is not good for either party or the safety of the site.
Pre-arranged audits will always lead to some 'prep', tidying and checking of records with potential 'pencil whipping' going on before you visit. Unannounced audits will always lead to urgent forays whilst the auditor has a 'cuppa' and signs in!
Go seek where you want and as deep as you think but try to do it sensibly. Why not rely upon witnessing a paper check by local staff as long as they look at what you would expect?
I never treated it as a hindrance rather a sign of pro-active involvement in the process. If I ever felt that there was more to see I would ask that we all go look in file 13 or that container in the corner that we all walked past very quickly whilst engaged in earnest conversation;-)
p48
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
David, Pete thank you for the insight, I have taken on board your comments.
I guess the reality of this scenario is that the client didn't really want an audit to be undertaken but felt that the exercise would look good in the eyes of other interested parties (I'll leave it there!). More or less lip service but, I agree with what you say Pete about proactive involvement, as the client did accompany every move, although in truth, he was more tuned in to the programme and progress of works than safety and health.
I also agree that 'we' should have discussed the audit in more detail with the client prior to execution, in particular parameters, expectations etc. The audit was solely reliant on 'our' own developed process and did not relate to the client's own HSMS. The basis of the audit was the PC's Construction Phase Plan and the implementation of the management arrangements set out within.
Finally, the dynamic aspect 'workplace inspection' was also constrained as, on my arrival, the entire workforce coincidentally went on a rather long lunch break! Again, challenging conditions but in no way unique!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
This can be common and poor practice and if a stand alone auditor without the backing of an insurance company etc. behind them needs the money (as most independents do) then an independent needs to be very careful as its their name on the documents and not the clients and such clients will back off ASAP should there be a problem and blame the auditor!
I have on many an occasion been accused of not being co-operative just because I wanted to do things correctly but I have worked in a different age which is very very very quickley coming to an end so I have been able to handle things differently to people who have to pay their way today
If its obvious that a client is a poor one then the consultant will need to consider if that type of client is one that they want but this is not an easy decision to make when mortgages are to be paid especially so as clients know other clients and gossip soon spreads
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
A decent auditor should be able to "smell the fresh paint"
I always insist on a site tour as soon as I arrive and refuse to be escorted by anyone from management (I usually find one of the tradesmen to do this), that way folks on the job are more likely to tell me "how it is".
I do have the luxury of being accountable to the board rather than a client though, so the site people have to do it my way.
At least they have used the event to get everything straight - I don't think any of us can kid ourselves that all sites are in full compliance at all times
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.