Last month’s column dealt with how to effectively communicate a finding of nonconformity in an audit report. It’s pretty straightforward: Here’s the requirement; there’s the evidence. They don’t match.

Observations, which are now often called opportunities for improvement (OFIs), aren’t so cut and dried. There’s no definite determination that a requirement hasn’t been fulfilled. There’s either inadequate evidence to conclude something is wrong or there’s a perception that something could easily go wrong. The first suggests the possibility that things may not be OK, but the situation has yet to come to light. The second intimates that the practices in place are implemented in such a way that there’s a risk of a breakdown.

In either case, the tacit message that the auditor is sending to the auditee is that this requires attention. Despite the ongoing debate as to whether or not auditors should make recommendations, I continue to adopt the philosophy that saying “should” to an auditee is outside the accepted purview of our responsibility. We can have enormous influence without taking inappropriate ownership of the organization’s problem-solving prerogative.

 …