7 replies to this topic

[mohamed ahmed yusuf]

Dears,

Kindy i have an inquiry about what are the audit techniques and what are the audit methdos? is there a difeerence between them? 

could you please refer to a reference and mention examples if applicable.

 

Also is the product audit could be named inspection? 

 

Thanks for your concern and support!

[Food Police]

I think we need a little more information before we can accurately answer your question or provide any guidance. Audit techniques and methods vary and greatly depend on the subject. What type of audit are you referring to? What is being audited and what standard is the audit referencing?

 

A "product audit" could be called an inspection, yes, but again the context is important to really answer your question.

[Benjamin Bunting]

I would agree with Food Police. There are several great Food Safety Friday webinars on aspects of auditing that might be beneficial.

[mohamed ahmed yusuf]

In general 

there are the normal 3 types of audits :1st,2nd and 3rd, is there a generic methods and techniques? all of them could include auditing of process, product, i read these words (techniques and methods into ISO 19011) but unfortunatelly it wasn't clear!

 

For the person who is doing an audit, which method, technique or both of them should he follow during the audit?

 

mainly i'm working on BRC standard, ISO 22000:2018 and ISO 9001:2015.

 

Hope that i could be more clear :) 

[Charles.C]

Dears,

Kindy i have an inquiry about what are the audit techniques and what are the audit methdos? is there a difeerence between them? 

could you please refer to a reference and mention examples if applicable.

 

Also is the product audit could be named inspection? 

 

Thanks for your concern and support!

 

"technique" is sort of defined as "method of collecting evidence."

 

eg -

 

 technique-method.PNG   18.78KB   12 downloads

(auditing : principles and techniques,Basu)

 

Similarly,

https://www.tutorial...que-method.PNG]

[mohamed ahmed yusuf]

"technique" is sort of defined as "method of collecting evidence."

 

eg -

 

technique-method.PNG

(auditing : principles and techniques,Basu)

 

Similarly,

https://www.tutorial...tachicon.gif"> technique-method.PNG technique-method.PNG

Thanks Charles for your support, it's really help!

[FodfoodsafetyKate]

I always find I best gain the best objective evidence through a vertical audit. 

I always tend to utilise the traceability and branch of on routes to piece the jigsaw together in a much more fluid manner.

 

Think this was the kind of thing you meant?

 

Also, I always try to ask open questions  "what, why, who and where"

 

Hope this helps you too

[Mathieu Colmant]

Hi,

 

Everything depends on what you are looking for.

Going through all questions and references, I will try to give some information.

1st, 2nd and 3rd party audits : 

1. First party is an audit where only one company is involved. It's also called internal audit. This remains the cases even if you ask some consultant to do the audit on your behalf.
2. Second party is an audit where two companies are involved. It's mainly suppliers audits : The client send an auditor to the client. As said for first party, the auditor can still be some independant consultant working on behalf.
3. Thrid party is... you guessed it. There are different explainations here, I still don't know which one is the original one : Company - certification body (DB) - standard editor (like BRC) / Company - CB - Accrediation body / Company - CB - client that will have the certificate. In fact, we don't care that much, it's the certification audit.

  All those audits can be performed the same way, with the same techniques or methods. 

As for lots of things in food safety, I personally don't care how everyone names them if we understand each other. 

An audit as a goal (checking if "this" works properly, not having no non-conformance...). If the goal is achieved, whatever the techniques used, then the audit is fine in my opinion. 

"Techniques" are quite simple, but don't tell you that much : read the documents, check the records, observe and ask. Don't judge, don't imagine, record facts.

For the questions, they talk about open, closed, oriented, investigation and clarification questions. But the most important thing is : don't give the answer in your question, like "Do you do like this and this ?"

 

Besides the whole checklists, taking several days to fill in, I currently have 22 internal audit check-list, each one checking in detail a single PRP or system (pest management, cleaning, personal hygiene, HACCP studies,...) This are some of the techniques/methods used in those audits : 

- Take the plan (pest control, flows, water taps,...) on site and check if everything is as the plan says.

- Take the list of raw materials and check the specs for each one, the date of each spec, the certificate and its validity of the supplier

- Take the list of raw materials and check on site if there no "registered" raw material

- Take the procedures on site and check if everything is running following document

 

But the most important thing, in my opinion, is to have (for an internal audit) an experienced auditor, well trained, and even more important able, when (s)he sees a small thing, to think to the possible origins and the possible consequences. So, from the small thing, he will find the main gap in the document or the way of doing things, and help to correctly fill the gap.

Why did I say for internal audit, and not for the others ? Because it's important for an internal auditor to find everything, so second and third party auditor won't find anything, and you won't have any problem with your clients or to get your certificate.