Five Words to Banish From the Internal Audit Dictionary

To refrain from further rankling auditees

I recently spoke at a conference where one of the sessions was called “Four Most Dangerous Words in Finance.” It reminded me of a blog I wrote a few years ago called “Ten Things Not to Say in an Audit Report.” Beyond the categories of phrases or messages that I explored in that blog, however, lie a handful of words that are so useless or polarizing that they should be banished from the internal audit dictionary.

Words have power. A well-written audit report is a call to action. A poorly written report can result in inappropriate action or no action at all. On the one hand, you don’t want to be too vague, but on the other, you don’t want to be perceived as too opinionated or antagonistic. Little things can make a big difference in how an auditor’s recommendations are received.

…

Want to continue?

By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.

Create a FREE account

Forgot My Password

Comments

Let the facts speak for themselves

The first three can be eliminated by remembering that audits are about objective findings of evidence. The evidence either does or does not meet the requirements of the standard. If, for example, gages have missed their calibration dates, the auditor does not report a conclusion like, "Management failed to implement an effective calibration control system." The correct finding is, "These gages missed their calibration dates." It is up to the auditee to determine how to eliminate the system-related deficiencies that allowed this to happen.

Acceptable Alternatives

Hello Mr. Chambers:

Thank you for the article on words to avoid. I would appreciate learning more about acceptble alternatives. For example, do you think "identified" is a better word to use than "found?"

Also, ISO 9001 and the sector specific standards based on 9001 require that via internal audits, the organziation shall determine if the quality management system is effecitvely implemented and maintained. It may be hard to claim the lack of effectiveness without using the term "ineffective." Is it possible that part of the problem with the word "ineffective" is whether we apply it to management or to a process? Or maybe any evaluation of effectiveness is based on the collective output of all audits and not just a single audit, and therefore auditors could avoid using that term in audit reports?

Thank you, Dirk

No response in 5 months

I found it interesting that the Best of 2013 included an artilce to which I made a comment. I am still hoping that Mr. Chambers can provide some alternative language to use in audit reports. Russel Ackoff said that the more we try to get rid of what we don't want, the less we get of what we want.

Thank you, Dirk