What are some common pitfalls to avoid when giving quality audit feedback?

There should be no surprises when giving audit feedback. Stick to facts, not opinions. Requirement - fulfillment or non fulfillment. Never, ever, place blame on an individual for a nonconformance. Stick to process performance.

The following are some common traps to avoid while providing quality audit feedback: 1. Being unduly critical or pessimistic. 2. Giving imprecise or hazy feedback. 3. Failing to provide particular instances. 4. Ignoring the benefits in favor of focusing solely on the problems. 5. Failure to prioritize action items for improvement. 6. Failure to consider the recipient's point of view. 7. Failure to monitor progress and outcomes. 8. Using jargon or technical phrases without explanation. 9. Providing personal judgments rather than impartial analyses. 10. Failure to personalize feedback to the needs and goals of the individual or team.

Effective quality audit feedback is critical to continual improvement. When providing feedback, establish a balance between criticism and encouragement. Overly negative comments can lower morale and stymie progress, whilst excessive praise may obscure areas that require attention. The idea is to provide helpful, concrete observations that emphasise both strengths and areas for improvement. We create a favourable climate that encourages teams to succeed by concentrating on concrete changes and recognising best practices. This strategy not only improves the audit process, but it also fosters a culture of technical excellence.

Agreed. It’s always been good to talk with who you are taking with you to attend the audit for a good agenda and then chat with the place you are auditing once you arrive before you even start.

In my experience, successful audit feedback planning is a delicate balance of expertise, cultural awareness, and a commitment to value creation. By adhering to objective criteria, maintaining a clear agenda, and embracing a forward-focused perspective, auditors can truly contribute to the auditee's success

This is incredibly important - audits based on opinion and generalisations are useless for the auditee, and very difficult to close out in the QMS because the lack of specificity in the findings: Like trying to catch smoke in a net.

Highlighting only the negative aspects can demoralize auditees and create resistance to feedback. Balance feedback by acknowledging strengths and positive practices along with areas needing improvement. This balanced approach fosters a more receptive attitude toward feedback.

In my experience, facts over opinions are paramount to a successful audit. It is never a good idea to generalize or opine when presenting audit findings. Base findings against specific audit standards. It’s also a good idea to group similar findings into an overarching finding and using each specific finding as support. The only time a person should be brought into the discussion should be if he/she is doing something that jeopardizes product, facilities, people or are falsifying data.

I agree , presenting data is an important factor. Especially when it comes to citations , the data should alqays be presented in a way it refelects the areas of improvements in system and processes, makimg a point or highlighting the mistakes is easy and that always put pressure on people working at ground level.

Harsh criticism can damage relationships and reduce the willingness of auditees to cooperate in the future. Use a constructive and objective tone. Focus on the process or behaviour rather than making it personal.

Getting the balance right is also dependent on the culture you are auditing (ref your first point under "plan ahead"). Some national cultures prefer a more direct approach, and others expect a more subtle delivery. Getting that balance right is a significant challenge to international auditors, and I find it best to ask the auditee what is their preferred approach before the audit itself.

I agree, a balanced approach to feedback will be helpful to auditee as this strategy offers points for compare and contrast. Positive feedback will act as a baseline to improve upon the areas receiving negative feedback.

I also like to offer guided solutions. As optional direction, not dictated direction. Open conversations help these talks have very positive outcomes.

Rightly explained. Its so easy to give suggessions ,however listening to voices who are actually facing issues, can make us better understand the problem. Quality should never be directive, it should be led by setting examples.

Merely pointing out problems without suggesting solutions can leave auditees unsure of how to proceed. Whenever possible, provide practical recommendations for addressing the identified issues. This guidance helps auditees take actionable steps towards improvement.

Invite discussion around any audit finding. This assures no misunderstandings, provides the auditee with the opportunity to ask for your opinion on what possible corrective actions may be appropriate.

Be part of the solution. Normally I’m quite careful to give any opinion or solutions for the non conformance and rather prefer to include a solution into a practical story where they can relate with.

I like to remind the auditee to look beyond the immediate finding to seek out possible systemic implications. Some tend to focus on the specifics of the finding without considering the wider implications across the QMS, which is a somewhat short sighted.

Delayed feedback can result in missed opportunities for timely improvement and correction. Providing feedback months after the audit can diminish its relevance. Timely feedback after an audit of financial reporting practices helps the finance team make necessary adjustments before the next reporting cycle. Deliver feedback promptly after the audit. This ensures that the information is still fresh and can be acted upon quickly.

This depends on the types of audits you are conducting and what the objective of the audit is. Certification auditors should not be providing recommendations and actions for the auditee. They are auditors, not consultants. I think there needs to be a clear separation of these roles, especially in an audit.

Feedback from the auditee is a crucial component of the audit process. It provides a unique perspective, offering insights into how the audit experience was perceived on the other side. This feedback is a valuable tool for auditors, helping them understand the impact of their communication and ensuring a more collaborative and constructive audit environment. I see feedback from auditees as a catalyst for excellence. Even the most accomplished auditors can gain valuable insights from the perspectives of those being audited, leading to more effective communication, collaboration, and ultimately, higher-quality audits

Just a shocking story. I was not accompanying the auditors unfortunately but when they viewed the tool stores, they criticised that spanners (wrenches) were held against a shadow board on wood screws. They came from an OEM not a maintenance background. They thought the hardened steel spanner’s would be damaged on the substandard steel alloy screws. If you have no experience of materials, you have no competence auditing an engineering establishment.

I agree. Know the ins and outs of where you are auditing to ensure you adjust your expectations and takeaways accordingly. Also, ask questions before making a blind decision or assumption.

Building a good relationship with the quality auditor before hand with clear expectations and strategies will make this communication smoother and better received.