ASSESSMENT VERSUS AUDIT

When we talk about demonstrating competence, we inevitably use the phrase ‘competency assessment’. This is no accident and it is very important that the term ‘assessment’ rather than ‘audit’ is used.

When the term ‘audit’ is used, it implies that there will be a binary outcome or, to put it another way, a ‘pass or fail’ outcome. A typical audit will identify a number of areas that are of interest, compare it to a standard and identify a set of non-conformances (usually major and minor). The result of such an audit will be a straight pass or fail, as a set of non-conformances will be provided.

When the term ‘assessment’ is used, it implies that there will be a graduated outcome that will provide an indication of a level of achievement in a particular area. The result of an assessment will typically be a profile that will show how mature a person (in the case of competency) or organisation (in the case of capability) is in a specific area. One of the major goals of an assessment approach is to provide a mechanism for self-improvement, and a profile, rather than a pass-or-fail output, is far more useful for this. This is a very simplified definition of an audit, but it is not within the scope of this book to argue the pros and cons of audits versus assessments, but it is useful to understand, at a high level, the differences between the two.