Bsi bip 2107 2006

un d er stan d ing required to pro er ly as es the efe t iv enes of th at org an iz tion... Audit ing against st andar ds has t o changerequirements... Co forma nce is in ica te a s low

Ian Rosam

Cre atin a P rocess base d M anag eme nt sys em fo ISO 9 01:20 0 and

Ian R osam and R ob P eddle

Fir st publshed in the UK in 2 0

b

BSI

Int rod ct ion 1

Int roduct ion

Warning

1 Fa ct – t he t r adit ional a udit process is broken

perfor m an ce

W h y t r adit ional audit ing doesn’ t w or k

5

Wh at are we au dit in g ag ain st ?

7

• reg ulator s;

9

un d er stan d ing required to pro er ly as es the efe t iv enes of th at org an iz tion

1

Asking t oo mu ch oft h e au dit or

13

How ev er, w e are n ot as es in g com plan ce, w e are as es ing t h e

results;

Example

• sup ler s are m an ag ed an d controled ;

17

ad d res ed the pro lem s w ith plann ing an aud it, c r r y ing it out an d then

19

is alre d y 5 per c n t w rong Unles d epar tm en t 2 puts the er ror s r ig h t, w hich is

• al t h e m an ag em en t d iscipln es t h at such fr am ew or k s require, such as

2

2 Audit ing against st andar ds has t o change

requirements

2

me n t h e n umber of d ay s a reg istr ation b dy sh ould hav e its aud it or c r r y ing

2

ab ut busin es proc s m an ag em en t an d sy st ems thin k ing fir st an d t h en

2

are s in clude procuremen st ak ehold er en g ag em en t , busin es plan nin g ,

Summary

3 Why do w e bot her t o a udit a t a ll?

com plan ce-based ap roa h Som e w il use m ore so h istic ted as es ment

3

Wh en startin g to aud it and h av in g d efin ed the sco e, y ou n eed to

t arg ets

sy st em

• St ak ehold er s h av e a cle r un d er stan d in g of b t h o er ation al ap roa h an

perfor m an ce

3

For pr actisin g aud itor s this could be eit h er g ood or bad n ew s Th ose

Summary

4 Inv olving t he r ight people t o ma ke t he

We used this fig ure t o sh ow th at w hen w e as es efe tiv en es , in for m ation

41

An internal bu siness improvement process

4

ex pe tations The sk il of the aud itor is to se k out t h is in for m ation fom such

custom

5 Don’ t ask q uest ions, look for behav iour s

t h ey d o w ith t h e in for m ation, th at is h ow efe t iv e t h e for m is w h en it is used

4

for d iferen t beh av iour al in for m ation ab ut th e sam e subje t w il g en er ate th e

Th e re l w or ld th at au itor s w or k in to as es efe t iv enes is com pl c ted To be

51

6 Col ect ing informa t ion

5

Th e aim of the mod el is t o en sure t h at the aud itor k eeps tr ack of the

P u rpose

Objective

P u rpose

Objectiv

• What do y ou d o w it h the results?

P u rpose

Objective

5

• En sure th at d iferen t peo le h av e the sam e o p rt un it y to ex pres th eir

Surv ey s

5

E- mai s and t elephone cal s

61

Wh ich ev er m ethod or combin ation of met h od s th e aud it or uses t o g at h er

7 Int er pret ing ef ect iveness and ident ify ing

is on ly on e such a tiv it y Fig ure 7.1 sh ow s some me surem en t a tiv ities, but not

con cer n ed

Th is analysis is c r r ied out t ak in g in to consid er at ion t h e org an iz tion ’s

8 Case st udies and examples

1 Faci ient Lt d –Winn ing Faci it ies Man ag ement

prev alen t

6

Ov ra ll result: 4 5 p r ce t – u cla ssifie result (more tha n 2 p r ce t of p rforma nce

1

10

502

3

4

789

Performa nce

71

Performa nce driv r

Ke

Ana lysis:

Ana lysis:

Result b d pa rtme t/u ctio /tea m

7

NON-CONFORMANCE REPOR

%

%

7

Qu s io No 3– Commer ia lly se sitiv informa tio is

7

Fur t her act ions and gener al commen t s

81

Dr iv r : P r oc s activities take plac

8

not the c se, that is, t h at the w rong proje ts are being ad d res ed Ag ain, w hy

8

Ov ra ll result: 51.1 p r ce t – Bro ze le el

1210

50

Performa nce

8

T he larg est difere c s are lkely to in icate that th re may be busin s risks.T he most sig nificant

Ana lysis:

29

30

Ana lysis:

%

Co forma nce is in ica te a s low with th folowin :

%

workin

Qu s io No 2 – Sta ff p r e tio of th org a niza tio

9

3 St af Sat isfact ion Asses ment

%

Area s of rela tiv impro eme t

%

manag em en t

a tiv ities as ociat ed w it h Clause 5 of th e st and ard I c r tain ly is n ot just a c se

101

Pa rticipa tio in th a sses me t

NON-CONFORMANCE REPOR

Performa nce

Performa nceDriv r

%

Ana lysis:

14

62

0

468

Manag ers

Staf

Ana lysis:

109

Result for gro ps in olv d

1 1

Co forma nce is in ica te a s low with th folowin s a teme t use in th a sses me t:

%

1 3

• Ord er s for pick in g are m an ag ed

1 5

As es me t a dminis ra tio :

1 7

My main in olv me t in th fulfilme t proc s is to:

1 9

Ana lysis:

109

2

0

468

Ana lysis:

Despatch

Result b th interes e pa rties

2

%

3

CONFIRMAT ION FORM

125

T itle: Un ertandin Our Market P roc s As esme t

2

PART ICIPAT ION

Ana lysis:

AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT

2

Ana lysis:

3

CONFIRMAT ION FORM

Rob Peddle

Auditing for th 21st Ce tury is d dicate to chale gin th s atus q o in

th au itin world, which is fai n to d lv er w hat organiz tio s realy n e

T e time for chan e has ar iv ed

Some of th au itin ap roaches me tio e in this b ok are n t new,

b t ad in th m to eth r is, as is ex posin th inh re t w eak es es b it into

th ex is in au itin proces T his n w synth sis is a fu dame tal shift in th

wa s au it are car ie o t

Se ior manager are co cern d with the p rformance of th

organiz tio an re uire s rate ic manag me t informatio that reflect

th ir n e to driv e eff ectiv en s and manage risk W hat manag r n e is

hig lev el an s rate ic – yet ofte au itin is low-lev el an low -v alu T here

is a mismatch, which th approach s in Auditing for th 21st Ce tury ad res

From an analysis of the lmitatio s of cur e t au tin practice, this

b o tak s the read r thro g a n w ap roach, an d mons rates th

principles thro gh a series of ex amples an case s u ies

Ab u t th au thor

Ian Rosam an Ro P d le hav e d v elop d th se auditin tech iq es base

u o impleme tin proces -base manag me t sys ems in th ‘real world’

an th n e to hav e ro us an appro riate auditin tech iq es for to a ’s

or ganiz t i ns Such tec hniq es n e to complet e t he c on n o s impr oveme t

lo p, manag risk an effectiv en s and thro g this driv e improv ed

p rf or mance These n e s also ap ly to th surg of complance re uireme t

that organiz tions n w face, ofte out id th n rmaly sp ere of s an ards

impleme tatio , b t p rhaps ev en more lk ly to e d in prosecutio