GMO,
For internal audits I take a somewhat different approach, since I feel our primary goal is to change behaviors and the whole audit program should be built with that goal.
Well before the audit I work with the organization to agree to a standard (which could be a regulatory standard, a customer requirement or something we create internally). Since audits tend to be infrequent (annually perhaps) I lay out some more frequent tours and inspections, done by the site staff. These may be every shift, every day, monthly, semi-annually - and usually some combination. These provide specific, recurring feedback to the organization.
Then the "formal" audit that I perform confirms the performance of these inspections as well as conformance to the standard we already agreed to. By agreeing in advance to the standard, we are positioned to have acceptance of the findings.
For each of the elements of the standard, I have documented ahead of time what might represent total compliance (near perfect), minor non-compliance, major non-compliance and abject non-compliance. This allows us to mention, in a non-threatening way, the minor errors and oversights that can occur in human nature, so they can be improved. It also lets is call out serious problems and omissions. These definitions done ahead of time also help standardize some of the subjectivity inherent in audits.
For me, I put all of this in a database, allowing comparison from location to location and over time. It also speeds the performance of the audit, as I can quickly refer to the last findings on an item (and copy/paste them if nothing has changed). We can also call out best practices and improvement, to provide some much-needed positive reinforcement.
All this goes into a detailed written report they receive the same day as the audit (facilitated by the database). Ths provides full disclosure, transparency and the ability to "correct" any finding that is in error. The way the scores are incremented will highlight modest improvements, even when some element has not reached "perfection." And dual pass-fail thresholds encourage a minimum level of adherence as well as an optimum level.
It is unfortunate in our society, that sometimes "we" (management) don't put much effort into something unless we are scored on it, and it is part of our performance evaluation. So these scores, along with the frequent internal checks, do serve to move behavior.
Having said all that (and sounding extremely regimented in the process) I will also "walk around" with my own sense of what the world should look like. When I am not conducting a formal audit, I still have my eyes open during any visit, and I will mention those areas that need attention, as well as areas that have improved. Training, awareness building activities, design criteria and other proactive elements round out the program.
Thanks for starting this engaging thread!
Ned Mitenius
www.bytesizeaudits.com