Term Definition Source Comment Self-audit of

process
Inspection Conformity evaluation by ISO 9000 Refers to the evaluation of whether a performance
observation and judgment (S000) product or service conforms to
accompanied as specified requirements. Product audit
appropriate by is a broader term, since it involves
measurement, testing or an evaluation of decisions related to
gauging product inspections (Juran and
31
Cryna, 1993), i.e. whether
specifications are suitable and
whether inspection methods are
capable
Self- Inspection of the work by ISO 8Œ0S Involves evaluation of product or
inspection the performer of that (199Œ) service conformity only. It is a part
work, according to of the self-audit, but only referring
specified rules to the output
Assessment Judgment or decision on Cambridge When assessment is done with
the quality, importance, (S000) reference to a management system
amount or value of standard, a system audit is
something performed. An audit is a special case
of assessment
Self- Comprehensive, EFØW This definition refers to a self-
assessment systematic and regular (1999) assessment where reference criteria
review of an for assessment are contained in a
organization’s activities BEW, and the evaluation is
and results referenced performed by an organization itself.
against a business A self-audit would incorporate this
excellence model (BEW) kind of a self-assessment
Øuality Systematic examination of ISO 8Œ0S Entity here refers to a product,
evaluation the extent to which an (199Œ) service, process, project, contract or
entity is capable of a system. A self-audit may include
fulfilling specified the evaluation of compliance of all of
requirements these entities, but is broader because
it involves the examination of
effectiveness and efficiency
Øuality Continual monitoring and ISO 8Œ0S Surveillance involves continual
surveillance verification of the status (199Œ) evaluation of product, service or
of an entity and analysis system conformance to requirements.
of records to ensure that A self-audit is a continual evaluation
specified requirements are of activities and results aimed at
being fulfilled their improvement
Audit Systematic, independent ISO 9000 While the audit defined in this
and documented process (S000) manner is restricted to the
for obtaining audit evaluation of compliance with audit
evidence and evaluating it criteria, a self-audit is not. Also, a
objectively to determine self-audit may not always obey the Tab1e I.
which agreed criteria are independence principle Evaluation terms and
fulfilled methodologies related
(continued) to the self-audit
IJØRW Term Definition Source Comment
19,1
Verification Confirmation, through the ISO 9000 Reflects the confirmation of product
provision of objective (S000) conformance to requirements. A self-
evidence, that specified audit verifies that requirements have
requirements have been been met
fulfilled
3C
Validation Confirmation, through the ISO 9000 Reflects a product’s fitness for use
provision of objective (S000) and application, or a system’s
evidence, that the suitability to achieve objectives. A
requirements for a specific self-audit includes these
intended use or
application have been
fulfilled
Review Activity undertaken to ISO 9000 Self-audit focuses not only on the
determine the suitability, (S000) suitability, adequacy and
adequacy and effectiveness, but also on efficiency.
effectiveness of the The results can be used as an input
subject matter to achieve into management review
Tab1e I. established objectives

procedures are documented and followed, and the existing instructions are
suitable for achieving performance goals. Otherwise, a procedural change is
requested. A self-audit is less formal and independent than an internal audit
that complies with the applicable audit standards (e.g. ISO 10011). As both are
evaluations of processes, they naturally have much in common and need
coordination for proper results. Under certain conditions, such as in a small
business and/or relatively simple processes, internal and self-audits could be
identical. In that case, the auditor and the auditee are the same person.
Naturally, a periodic assessment by an external auditor should be conducted to
verify self-audit results. These results should also be used as an input into the
management review process, which is required by the ISO 9000 standards. In
fact, incorporating the outcomes of the audit process in management review
and business planning is probably the most important feature of self-
assessments that should render the self-audit more useful for continuous
improvement.
Finally, when self-audits are performed at the individual level (Figure S),
they may be confused with self-inspections. Juran and Cryna (1993) explain the
difference between a self-inspection and a product audit. While the former is
related to the decision on whether the product conforms to specifications or not,
and is performed by the operator him/herself, the latter is conducted by a
person other than the operator and evaluates the appropriateness of inspection
decisions and criteria. In other words, self-inspections are product quality
evaluations, while self-audits are process performance evaluations. Also, while
inspectors cannot make a decision on the corrective action resulted from the
product nonconformance (Juran and Cryna, 1993), self-audits would allow
Criteria External audit Internal audit Self-audit Self-assessment Self-audit of
process
Purpose Øuality system Control of Identification of Attaining business performance
registration product, process, process strengths excellence through
or system and weaknesses strengths and
improvement
opportunities
33
Scope Standard By directive of Specified area of By directive of
requirements management (e.g. operational management and
(e.g. ISO 9001) plant/unit) responsibility award guidelines
Applicability Registration Wainly in large In companies of When goal is
procedure multi-unit any size or business excellence
companies industry
Client Applicant, Wanagement Wanagement and Wanagement and
customer or process owner stakeholders
registrar
Auditor Certified Appointed and Authorized and Trained managers
professional trained employee trained process (internal) or team
owner of experts
(external)
Auditee Company Supervisory Process owner, Wanagement and
employees management person in-charge supervisors
Auditing Compliance with Documented and Appropriate Documented,
process criteria published audit authorized evaluation comprehensive
standards (e.g. procedures methods (e.g. evaluation and
ISO 10011) checklists) analysis
Reporting and Formal report Report to and Submittal of Report to
follow-up and follow-up decision by suggested management Tab1e II.
by management management improvement(s) (internal) and Examples of
award committee differences among
(external) several types of audits

qualified ‘‘process owners’’ to make such decisions, subject to periodic external

reviews. It is important to note that the advantages of self-inspection, reported
by Juran and Cryna (1993), including the psychological benefit of not having
the outsider judge one’s work and job enlargement, would be translated to the
self-audit.

When and where is self-audit a@@licable?

Every process involves at least one person who should be able to assess the
performance of that process. It does not matter if it is preparing soup in a hotel
kitchen or producing a circuit board for a computer. Therefore, much like the
traditional quality audit, a self-audit is applicable to any organization,
regardless of its size, position in the market, or the type of product or service
delivered. The main idea behind the self-audit is to broaden its scope beyond
quality assurance to other functions and areas in an organization, involving not
IJØRW only quality professionals, but also basically all employees and concerned
19,1 parties. The introduction of self-assessment methodologies should facilitate
such an increase in the scope of implementation. On the other hand, self-audits
for environmental, occupational health and safety, maintenance, ergonomic
and accounting applications may not be far-fetched, either. For further
discussion on the fundamentals of cross-discipline auditing, an interested
34 reader may refer to Karapetrovic and Willborn (S000).

Princip1es
Any transformation from traditional quality auditing to the proposed self-audit
framework requires a significant shift in responsibility and authority for
process evaluation from the auditor to the process owner. However, an abrupt
allocation of such responsibilities to the process owner, especially in
organizations which have just initiated systematic performance improvement
efforts (e.g. see Dale, 1999), may cause more harm than good. Lack of
knowledge and understanding of the audit criteria, subjective evaluations of
one’s own work, and deficiencies in corrective and preventive action follow-up
are but a few examples that may be expected as a consequence of a sudden and
unprepared empowerment of the auditee to conduct self-evaluations. Therefore,
such a transformation can begin only after certain prerequisites are met.

What are the @rerequisites for @erforming a self-audit?

According to Forsha (199S), the basic conditions for continuous improvement
are: ‘‘identifying a problem, motivating yourself to do something about it, and
taking action’’. While the introduction of the traditional auditing methodology
facilitates the attainment of the first stated condition, it is expected that self-
evaluation will increase the motivation to act on the findings, and thus foster
the achievement of the second and third condition. However, improvement can
only occur if the process is stable and capable of meeting set requirements first,
in other words, if it is controlled. Since in a self-audit, the process owner
conducts the evaluation of process performance, the most important
prerequisite becomes self-control, both psychological and technical. Juran and
Cryna (1993), and later Shirley and Cryna (1998), discuss this concept in detail,
and emphasize that, in order to be in the state of self-control, process owners
must know:
● what they are supposed to do;
● what their actual performance has been; and
● how to regulate their performance.
These conditions point out the need for proper training of self-auditors,
allocation of sufficient time to perform the audit, preparation of audit aids such
as checklists and scoring sheets, ensuring management support, and adequate
follow-up with respect to audit findings. Enclosed is a more detailed list of the
requirements for a successful self-audit: