Periodic inspection

How is an audit finding written?

A finding has three parts: the requirement breached (clause, legislation or internal procedure), the evidence observed (which record, which date, which field observation) and a one-sentence statement of the gap between them. A proposed solution is not part of the finding — choosing the fix belongs to the auditee; otherwise the auditor audits their own suggestion next time round.

Three parts

  1. Requirement: which clause, which law, which internal procedure is breached?
  2. Evidence: what was seen? Which record, which date, which person, which field observation.
  3. Deviation: the gap between evidence and requirement, in one sentence.

A poor finding: “Training records are inadequate.” A good one: “ISO 45001 clause 7.2 requires competence records to be retained; the attendance record for the work-at-height training of 12 March lacks the signatures of three workers, and those three carried out the same task on 4 April.”

Why the fix is not part of the finding

If the auditor writes the fix, two things follow: the auditee does not own it, and at the next audit the auditor is auditing their own suggestion. Independence applies here too. The auditor states what is wrong; the process owner decides what to do.

Findings are shared at the closing meeting

Findings are stated verbally before they are written up, so misunderstandings are corrected there. A finding first heard at the closing meeting is not a surprise — but a finding first seen in the report is a problem with the audit, not the system.

Positive findings are written too

A practice that works well and is never recorded can be quietly removed at the next reorganisation. “This works, keep it” is also an audit output.

Manage this in Optifora

Optifora is not a single program but a compliance platform assembled from modules. The catalogue states which module is ready today and which is on the roadmap.

See what Optifora is