Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Self-Audit of Process Performance
Self-Audit of Process Performance
Self-Audit of Process Performance
process
Inspection Conformity evaluation by ISO 9000 Refers to the evaluation of whether a performance
observation and judgment (S000) product or service conforms to
accompanied as specified requirements. Product audit
appropriate by is a broader term, since it involves
measurement, testing or an evaluation of decisions related to
gauging product inspections (Juran and
31
Cryna, 1993), i.e. whether
specifications are suitable and
whether inspection methods are
capable
procedures are documented and followed, and the existing instructions are
suitable for achieving performance goals. Otherwise, a procedural change is
requested. A self-audit is less formal and independent than an internal audit
that complies with the applicable audit standards (e.g. ISO 10011). As both are
evaluations of processes, they naturally have much in common and need
coordination for proper results. Under certain conditions, such as in a small
business and/or relatively simple processes, internal and self-audits could be
identical. In that case, the auditor and the auditee are the same person.
Naturally, a periodic assessment by an external auditor should be conducted to
verify self-audit results. These results should also be used as an input into the
management review process, which is required by the ISO 9000 standards. In
fact, incorporating the outcomes of the audit process in management review
and business planning is probably the most important feature of self-
assessments that should render the self-audit more useful for continuous
improvement.
Finally, when self-audits are performed at the individual level (Figure S),
they may be confused with self-inspections. Juran and Cryna (1993) explain the
difference between a self-inspection and a product audit. While the former is
related to the decision on whether the product conforms to specifications or not,
and is performed by the operator him/herself, the latter is conducted by a
person other than the operator and evaluates the appropriateness of inspection
decisions and criteria. In other words, self-inspections are product quality
evaluations, while self-audits are process performance evaluations. Also, while
inspectors cannot make a decision on the corrective action resulted from the
product nonconformance (Juran and Cryna, 1993), self-audits would allow
Criteria External audit Internal audit Self-audit Self-assessment Self-audit of
process
Purpose Øuality system Control of Identification of Attaining business performance
registration product, process, process strengths excellence through
or system and weaknesses strengths and
improvement
opportunities
Scope Standard 33
By directive of Specified area of By directive of
requirements management (e.g. operational management and
(e.g. ISO 9001 plant/unit) responsibility award guidelines
Wainly in large In companies of When goal is
multi-unit any size or business excellence
companies industry
)
Applicability Registration
procedure
Princip1es
Any transformation from traditional quality auditing to the proposed self-audit
framework requires a significant shift in responsibility and authority for
process evaluation from the auditor to the process owner. However, an abrupt
allocation of such responsibilities to the process owner, especially in
organizations which have just initiated systematic performance improvement
efforts (e.g. see Dale, 1999), may cause more harm than good. Lack of
knowledge and understanding of the audit criteria, subjective evaluations of
one’s own work, and deficiencies in corrective and preventive action follow-up
are but a few examples that may be expected as a consequence of a sudden and
unprepared empowerment of the auditee to conduct self-evaluations. Therefore,
such a transformation can begin only after certain prerequisites are met.