An Internal Auditor (IA), someone that already works for and is familiar with the company, will tend to focus auditing efforts on current, known problems. Whatever the current concerns of the executive group are is where he/she will spend most of their time auditing.

An External Auditor (EA) does not have preconceived notions about what is right and wrong with field operations. Therefore, all processes are looked at, including those an IA would believe are already best practices.

For example, the recent addition of expensive technology to assign loads might lead an IA to consider ‘load assignment processes’ as already optimized. Therefore, the IA might ignore analyzing how loads are assigned.

An EA however might find that Driver Managers, by relying 100% on the recommendations of the technology, are ignoring important ‘load assignment decision influences’ that are outside the scope of the technology’s ability (Home Time, PM Due, O/Operator vs. Company Truck, Maintenance Recall, etc... ).

Using an External Auditor to perform your Operations Audits guarantees that all processes will be analyzed, thereby greatly increasing the scope of improvement opportunities.

Consider a trucking company that uses driver scorecard software. Let’s examine the processes two Driver Managers (referred to as DM A and DM B) from the same company might use to capture the benefit of that technology.

DM A photocopies and writes comments on each scorecard such as ‘Good Job’ or ‘Need to do Better’ and then places them in each driver’s folder. Some drivers come in every week; others may not be seen for a month or longer. For those drivers, DM A mails the scorecards to their homes after discovering the old scorecard still in their folder when he is filing current month results. DM B places new scorecards in each driver’s folder and mails a second copy to their homes to make sure all drivers receive a current copy as soon as possible. DM B also discusses scorecard results with each driver every month; in person when possible and over the phone when not. Good performance is complimented and recognized. Certificates are issued for each driver performing in the top 20% and their names are announced to all drivers in the team. Poor performance is addressed based on driver performance history maintained by DM B which includes details of past interviews documenting discussion and action items. Repeat offenders are disciplined after 3 consecutive offenses. 1st time poor performers are asked why performance was poor and what DM B can do to help. Which DM do you think achieves consistently higher productivity, and therefore improved bottom line performance, for their assigned group of drivers? The processes used by DM B provide drivers with current performance results and a consistent and predictable reaction based on those results (recognition, coaching or discipline). DM B drivers realize that they will be recognized for their performance and understand that there are consequences if they consistently under perform.

When it comes to improving your operations, one of the most critical components for success is based on the old and familiar adage ‘You can’t Manage what you don’t Measure’. However, from an Operations Improvement perspective that adage is not 100% complete. It should state ‘You can’t Manage what you don’t Measure Accurately and Consistently.

Report Analysis focuses on making sure that field managers have accurate and consistent data to manage from.

For example, inaccurate data could under or over report actual employee performance resulting in performance reviews based on bogus results. Inaccurate data eventually leads to credibility issues as employees familiar with reporting errors begin to ignore reported results. Combined, the reporting of inaccurate results and company-wide report credibility issues will become particularly troubling if employees are provided financial incentives based on those reports.

Inconsistency refers to reports that are not generated or updated with enough frequency to provide meaningful information that can be acted upon quickly. For example, publishing a report only quarterly or monthly on idling performance would hamper measurement (and management) of reducing idling time quickly.

No - all terminals within a company do not have to be audited. If terminals run very similar operations, it’s possible that one audit could provide all the needed changes necessary to improve operations at every field location.

However, there may have to be some adjustments in the new SOPs for individual terminals with unique needs.

To determine if the new SOPs are 100% transferrable, when the results and new SOPs from the first audit are shared with the other locations, request that they provide feedback as to if/why specific SOPs won’t work at their location.