It makes very good sense that companies want to have value-added audits. Auditors and auditing companies often re-assure the audited companies that these are the kinds of auditing services they offer. Have you ever wondered what is actually meant by “value-added audits”? If you are audited, or you are the auditor, what would you consider to be value-added? Do you expect “value-added” to mean the same thing to both parties (the audited and the auditor)?
From an auditor’s perspective, the ordinary understanding of “value-added” is this: The auditor points out a number of things that the audited company has not considered in its programs. In this sense, it does not matter if these things (usually deficiencies) are rated as non-conformities. The more the deficiencies that are pointed out, the greater the value added and the lower the likely final audit score. This is all seen as improving the company’s programs. Value is added. It is clear that the final audit score is typically inversely proportional to the value added. This means that as a facility becomes more proficient, consistent and effective in maintaining its programs, the value that can be added by the audit decreases.
Is this what you understand as “value-added audits” or do you have a different understanding? For example, if a customer’s decision to buy from the audited company is based on the audit score, will this still be value-added since the customer may choose to go elsewhere with fewer “value-added” findings and supposedly higher audit score? Please share your thoughts.
Edited by gcse-fhp, 02 November 2012 - 02:44 PM.