Periodic inspection

How is post-audit follow-up handled?

For every finding, the correction and corrective action are planned, then done, then verified for effectiveness. Closure is not the moment the action is completed but the moment its effectiveness is shown. The number and the age of open findings are among the most honest indicators of a system's real condition.

Four steps

  1. Acceptance: the process owner accepts the finding and its class, or objects; the objection is recorded too.
  2. Plan: correction, root cause, corrective action, owner, due date.
  3. Implementation: the work is done and its evidence recorded.
  4. Verification: after enough time, effectiveness is tested; only then does it close.

Whose decision closure is

The auditor who raised the finding, or the person managing the audit programme, closes it — a process owner cannot close their own finding. That is auditor independence applied to the follow-up stage.

Open findings as an indicator

Two numbers are tracked and reported to management:

  • the number of open findings,
  • the age of open findings — particularly those past their due date.

Age says more than count: if all ten open findings are from this month the system is working; if two are two years old it is not.

Recurring findings

A finding raised again shows the earlier corrective action never reached the root cause. Recurring findings are flagged separately and the root cause analysis is redone, deeper — the real cause is usually one layer above what was found the first time.

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