Never audit alone--the case for audit teams.

N. Adams
{"title":"Never audit alone--the case for audit teams.","authors":"N. Adams","doi":"10.1080/105294199750061308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"UNLABELLED\nOn-site audits, conducted by technical and quality assurance (QA) experts at the data-gathering location, are the core of an effective QA program. However, inadequate resources for such audits are the bane of a QA program and, frequently, the proposed solution is to send only one auditor to the study site. There are several reasons why audits should be performed by more than one person: 1.\n\n\nSAFETY\nAudits of EPA projects frequently involve hazardous chemicals or other environmental hazards. They also often involve working after normal work hours in remote locations with dangerous equipment. It is unsafe to work alone under such conditions. 2. Skills: Many of EPA's projects are multidisciplinary, involving multiple measurements systems, several environmental media, and complex automated data collection and analysis systems. It is unlikely that one auditor would have the requisite skills to assess all of these operations. 3. Separateness: Two auditors can provide two (sometimes differing) perspectives on problems encountered during an audit. Two auditors can provide complementary expertise and work experience. Two auditors can provide twice the surveillance power. 4. Support: The operations that need to be assessed are sometimes in different parts of a site, requiring two auditing devices or considerable commuting time. Also, auditors are occasionally diverted by managers wishing to show their best efforts rather than the whole operation; if two auditors are on-site, one can interview managers while the other talks with technical staff. If there is a dispute, one auditor can support the other in verifying observations. 5. Savings: Although sending one auditor is perceived to be a cost-saving measure, it may be more economical to send two auditors. Time on site (lodging, food) is decreased, more of the project is assessed in one visit, less pre-audit training is required, and report preparation is accelerated. In summary, sending more than one auditor on a field audit is smarter, safer and more effective, and can be less expensive in the long run.","PeriodicalId":20856,"journal":{"name":"Quality assurance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality assurance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/105294199750061308","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

UNLABELLED On-site audits, conducted by technical and quality assurance (QA) experts at the data-gathering location, are the core of an effective QA program. However, inadequate resources for such audits are the bane of a QA program and, frequently, the proposed solution is to send only one auditor to the study site. There are several reasons why audits should be performed by more than one person: 1. SAFETY Audits of EPA projects frequently involve hazardous chemicals or other environmental hazards. They also often involve working after normal work hours in remote locations with dangerous equipment. It is unsafe to work alone under such conditions. 2. Skills: Many of EPA's projects are multidisciplinary, involving multiple measurements systems, several environmental media, and complex automated data collection and analysis systems. It is unlikely that one auditor would have the requisite skills to assess all of these operations. 3. Separateness: Two auditors can provide two (sometimes differing) perspectives on problems encountered during an audit. Two auditors can provide complementary expertise and work experience. Two auditors can provide twice the surveillance power. 4. Support: The operations that need to be assessed are sometimes in different parts of a site, requiring two auditing devices or considerable commuting time. Also, auditors are occasionally diverted by managers wishing to show their best efforts rather than the whole operation; if two auditors are on-site, one can interview managers while the other talks with technical staff. If there is a dispute, one auditor can support the other in verifying observations. 5. Savings: Although sending one auditor is perceived to be a cost-saving measure, it may be more economical to send two auditors. Time on site (lodging, food) is decreased, more of the project is assessed in one visit, less pre-audit training is required, and report preparation is accelerated. In summary, sending more than one auditor on a field audit is smarter, safer and more effective, and can be less expensive in the long run.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
永远不要单独审计——审计团队就是这样。
由数据收集地点的技术和质量保证(QA)专家进行的现场审核是有效的QA程序的核心。然而,用于此类审核的资源不足是QA计划的祸根,通常,建议的解决方案是只派遣一名审核员到研究现场。审计应该由多人执行的原因有以下几点:1。EPA项目的安全审核经常涉及危险化学品或其他环境危害。他们还经常在正常工作时间之后在偏远地区使用危险设备工作。在这样的条件下单独工作是不安全的。2. 技能:EPA的许多项目是多学科的,涉及多种测量系统、几种环境介质和复杂的自动化数据收集和分析系统。一个审计员不太可能具备评估所有这些业务的必要技能。3.独立性:两个审核员可以对审计过程中遇到的问题提供两种(有时是不同的)观点。两名审核员可以提供互补的专业知识和工作经验。两名审计员可以提供两倍的监督权力。4. 支持:需要评估的操作有时在站点的不同部分,需要两个审计设备或相当长的通勤时间。此外,审计人员有时会被那些希望展示自己最大努力而不是整个业务的经理们所转移;如果有两名审核员在场,一名可以采访管理人员,另一名可以与技术人员交谈。如果有争议,一个审核员可以支持另一个审核员核实观察结果。5. 节省:虽然派遣一名审计员被认为是一种节省成本的措施,但派遣两名审计员可能更经济。减少了在现场(住宿、餐饮)的时间,增加了一次评估项目的数量,减少了审核前的培训,加快了报告的准备。总而言之,派遣多名审核员进行现场审核更明智、更安全、更有效,而且从长远来看成本更低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Data and metadata reporting standards for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's PM Supersites Research Program. Data and information quality strategic plan. How good are my data?: Information quality assessment methodology. The quality management system as a tool for improving stakeholder confidence. Two data bases in every garage: information quality systems.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1