In this collaborative article, Kevin Keymeulen, quality manager of the IBE-BVI group, and Leo Goeyens share their experiences with quality-focused audits. They advocate for audit procedures that address specific areas for tangible progress, but avoid any confrontational or accusatory tone.

Quality assurance (QA) is an essential aspect of quality management, holding great importance for businesses. Through ongoing evaluation and enhancement of their goods, services, and processes, companies can boost customer satisfaction, productivity, and competitiveness, all the while adhering to legal or regulatory standards.

What exactly constitutes quality assurance

Basically, QA embraces every element of the organisation’s operations, not least quality management, which plays an instrumental role in fostering a culture of continuous improvement[1]. For example, the QA team of the manufacturing and logistics company is involved in all phases of implementation and development, including production, testing, packaging and shipping. The QA of the IBE-BVI group focuses on securing the reliability, consistency and high quality of all services related to testing and lab results for packaging and packaging materials. This requires expertise and impartiality.

The primary objective of QA is to minimise the likelihood of defects, specifically by detecting and correcting them as soon as possible throughout the value stream. Implementing this approach significantly decreases the number of issues found during final quality control, as well as the necessity for complex and costly remediation. Discovering and fixing a faulty component as soon as possible saves both time and resources. QA helps reduce costs and protects a brand’s reputation.

This process encompasses the implementation of both technical and managerial procedures. A well-functioning QA system guarantees that product testing, employee surveys, as well as equipment safety evaluations are carried out. Once integrated, these components will be focused on preserving and enhancing the organisation’s quality. Furthermore, QA guarantees adherence to industry norms and laws, provides a competitive advantage, and leads to increased earnings.

Quality assurance and quality control are not synonyms

While QA and quality control (CQ) are sometimes used interchangeably, they actually represent distinct but complementary concepts[1].

CQ prioritises the final product or outcome and centres on ensuring that it aligns with predetermined criteria and requirements. It involves exploratory procedures like inspection, testing, measurement, and evaluation to detect flaws and deviations.

QA, on the other hand, is a comprehensive, system-level approach that focuses on whether processes are properly designed, implemented, and consistently followed to prevent defects before they occur. It encompasses activities such as quality planning, process design, documentation, training, risk management, and continuous improvement, all aimed at embedding quality into the organization’s culture and operations.

QA serves as a structured foundation for CQ activities. It not only helps CQ, but also goes beyond it. Rather, it establishes the overarching quality management mindset and rules that CQ must adhere to. An effective quality system integrates both QA and CQ, using QA to drive prevention and system improvement, and CQ to confirm that quality requirements have been successfully achieved in practice.

Audits are an essential procedural component

Audits are objective and thorough evaluations of whether certain actions, processes, and management structures meet predetermined criteria. These may include regulations, laws, or guidelines. They are usually planned in advance, with a clearly defined scope and criteria. Independent and impartial auditors, who are not involved in the audited activities, conduct these evaluations.

The first step in any audit is a thorough preparation: auditors carefully examine the necessary materials and design a strategy. During the audit itself, they gather evidence through interviews, observations, as well as the review of records. They contrast this evidence with the established standards to detect deviations and uncover prospects for enhancement.

After the audit, findings are documented and communicated in an audit report. The audited organisation is typically required to perform root-cause analysis and define corrective actions for any identified non-conformity. Implementing corrective actions effectively requires follow-up activities to prevent the recurrence of mistakes.

The strength of an audit is also rooted in its ability to nurture trust

Based on his previous audit engagements, Kevin concluded that the auditor’s attitude and proficiency significantly affect the success and trustworthiness of the auditing process. A constructive, open-minded and respectful approach fosters in-depth technical discussions, promotes careful assessment of information, and creates common ground between auditors and the audited parties. Then the audits will uncover genuine risks and prospects for enhancement.

Auditors without the necessary technical expertise for the audit’s scope may overly rely on their limited experience, familiar methods, or personal interpretations. To successfully address this challenge, careful prior planning is essential. Otherwise, if the auditor lacks a comprehensive understanding of the technologies under review, he may misinterpret more complex or specialised concepts. Overreliance on partial knowledge can lead to erroneous judgments, inappropriate non-conformity, and overlooked risks.

Some auditors tend to zoom in on areas that require improvement. However, it is equally important to acknowledge and highlight current achievements and potential for expansion. Recognising achievements fosters more benevolence and drive, prompting everyone to seek and address areas for growth. Positive questioning can spark learning, self-reflection, and constructive criticism, instead of eliciting defensive reactions.

The adverse effects of insufficient proficiency and a rigid or disregarding mindset are exacerbated. Such an approach may hinder constructive dialogue, discourage the presentation of proof, and undermine trust in the audit’s findings. Incompetent auditing may not uphold conformity or improvement; moreover, it could jeopardise the credibility of the quality system and the worth of the audit itself.

Audits are most effective when they are both thorough and conducted in a way that fosters trust. Then the findings are respected, actionable, and truly beneficial for quality enhancement. Trust is a shared commitment. To trust is to believe that working with others will result in a better outcome than acting alone. More than submission to the pursuit of individual interests, trusting relationships form the enduring foundation of social connections[2].

In English confidence and trust are not synonyms. The former means to have faith in one’s own abilities, judgement, or qualities. Trust, on the other hand, means feeling confident about the actions or decisions of others. The belief that someone or something from outside will behave with honesty, dependability and expertise is the foundation of trust. The recognition of the other(s) highlights the value of cooperation.

The link between trust and cooperation is paramount

Trust should be the cornerstone of successful cooperation between auditors and the audited parties during an audit. In this cooperative atmosphere, auditors have the opportunity to collect thorough and trustworthy data, grasp intricate processes, and reach well-considered judgments.

Trust in the audit results hinges on the existence of confidence and cooperation. Auditors who are skilled and approachable, and auditees who are forthcoming and cooperative, are more likely to produce findings that accurately reflect the state of processes and adherence to regulations. Conversely, distrust can give rise to defensive behaviour, incomplete disclosure, and the adverse effects of insufficient proficiency and a rigid or disregarding mindset are exacerbated superficial responses. This undermines the reliability and worth of the evaluation. In essence, trust and cooperation are mutually reinforcing: auditors who earn confidence encourage openness and collaboration, while cooperative auditees enable audits that are thorough, accurate, and credible. Together, they ensure that audit results are reliable, actionable, and genuinely supportive of continuous improvement.

The renowned French economist Éloi Laurent further solidifies the link between trust and cooperation[3]. Trust is the expectation of reliability in human behavior. He contends that trust is the conviction in the reliability of human behaviour. This implies a relationship with one or more people in a given context for a specific purpose, whereby this expectation of reliability arises from the will of the individual. According to Laurent, cooperation is the strengthening of social connections that enables us to harness collective intelligence and meet our needs and aspirations. Trust, on the other hand, is an expectation of reliability placed in human conduct that presupposes a relationship with other individuals for the purpose. To ensure successful cooperations, it is essential to have institutions or bodies capable of fostering lasting trust.

A quality audit is primarily focused on achieving three main goals: ensuring adherence to standards, optimising processes, and enhancing the overall quality of the product[4]. The word help is remarkably prevalent in the information. Quality audits help prevent legal issues and maintains the organization's reputation by ensuring that quality management systems. They ensure that products and services meet quality expectations and help identify areas where quality can be enhanced. Moreover, an ongoing evaluation helps organisations adapt and improve their quality management practices over time. By identifying potential risks and areas of non-compliance, quality audits help organizations mitigate risks associated with poor quality, which can lead to financial losses and damage to reputation.

Both cooperation and helping are vital for effective teamwork, as they promote mutual assistance and build strong relationships among individuals. Cooperation is horizontal; to cooperate is to associate voluntarily in a form of mutual respect and on an equal footing.

How can trust be strengthened

Trust in audit outcomes is closely tied to the level of cooperation between auditors and audited parties. When auditors inspire confidence by demonstrating their competence, impartiality, and willingness to discuss, companies are more likely to provide accurate information, clarifications, and participate in constructive dialogue.

Cooperation facilitates efficient validation and ongoing optimisation. Open communication allows for pinpointing underlying issues, consensus on corrective measures, and tracking their implementation. Promoting cooperation transforms audits into collective efforts rather than solo evaluations. This results in more credible and useful outcomes, fostering confidence in the audit’s reliability and value.

The bedrock of trust is credibility. Consistency creates an environment of openness, making everyone feel safe and secure. In contrast, even small deviations from the truth can trigger a chain reaction of distrust.

Truth-telling must go hand-in-hand with consistent behavior. Words carry weight only when backed by actions. Individuals who walk the talk inspire loyalty and trust. Consistently aligning actions with principles can motivate others not only to follow, but also to hold them in high regard. Expressing the truth requires one to rely on accurate information (data) and predetermined or agreed-upon definitions and understandings.

Persistently ignoring advice and not taking into account the viewpoints of opponents or partners is a sure path to failure. Power corruption will be imminent, and essential objectives will be suppressed in a misguided pursuit of absolute dominance. To develop effective solutions, it is crucial to consider all aspects of a situation, rather than solely focusing on areas that need improvement, while ignoring those that operate smoothly or favourably.

Make audits into mutually beneficial events.

Trust and cooperation are key to reliable results. Should auditors aim to cultivate a climate of respect and understanding with those being audited? This approach would likely lead to more complete and honest information, making it easier for auditors to understand the inner workings of the organisation. Additionally, shouldn’t auditors act as consultants, offering their expertise, providing constructive feedback, and suggesting concrete improvements, all while maintaining neutrality?

The best relationships are win-win!

[1] Quality assurance: A critical ingredient for organizational success. https://www.iso.org/quality-management/quality-assurance

[2] Laurent (2019). L’économie de la confiance. La Découverte

[3] Laurent (2024). Coopérer et se faire confiance. Éditions Rue de l’échiquier

[4] The role of quality management - https://quality.eleapsoftware.com/the-role-of-quality-management-system-audits-in-compliance/