A discrepancy between internal control and an independent survey does not always mean that someone has made a mistake. The two checks may be carried out correctly, but at different times, by different methods and with different tasks. For example, a receiving inspector examines a batch immediately after unloading and does not notice any visible defects. A few hours later another specialist carries out a more detailed inspection after the cargo has been moved and finds deformation of several packages. The results differ not necessarily because of the quality of the specialists’ work – the condition of the object and the conditions of its inspection have changed.
An independent survey is not obliged to confirm or refute internal control. It provides independent recording of the condition of the object within a specific assignment. Comparing the results makes it possible to understand what exactly differs and whether an additional check is needed. For a business it is more useful to look not for the one to blame for the discrepancy but for its cause. Comparing the object, the time, the methodology, the scope and the initial data helps to obtain a comparable picture and to use an independent survey as a complement to internal control.
What tasks the company’s internal control solves
Internal control is built into the day-to-day work of the enterprise. It is applied on acceptance of raw materials and materials, on release of products, on operation of equipment, on storage and in other operations. Unlike a one-off independent inspection, it is carried out by employees who work with the specific processes and objects all the time.
An internal specialist often has information that is unavailable to an external expert: the history of the batch, the results of previous tests, the technological requirements, the characteristics of the equipment and the internal acceptance criteria. This makes it possible to assess the current result in a broader production context.
Regularity is another advantage of such control. One employee or department can observe an object for a long time, compare current indicators with previous ones and notice deviations more quickly.
Internal control does not necessarily involve a detailed examination of every object. Its scope is established by internal procedures and the specific production task. For example, warehouse acceptance may be limited to checking the quantity, the marking and the integrity of the packaging, whereas the technical department carries out a deeper check of the equipment.
In practice control is often carried out under time pressure: the transport has to be unloaded, production is waiting for raw materials, and the warehouse works to a schedule. The procedure may therefore be geared towards the rapid identification of substantial deviations rather than the detailed independent recording of all signs.
The check may also be selective. With a large batch the enterprise is able to control only part of the identical cargo units. In that case the results relate to the sample checked and must not automatically be extended to the whole batch.
A wording such as “packaging without remarks” means only that no defects requiring a response were identified in the course of this procedure. It does not necessarily confirm the absence of any minor damage or other signs that an independent specialist might look for.
Moreover, an internal employee is usually connected with the subsequent production decision. A deviation identified may become grounds for an additional analysis, for placing the material in quarantine or for authorising its use. An independent surveyor, as a rule, records the actual condition within the assignment, while the decision is taken by the client.
That is why the results of internal control must be considered with account of its purpose, methodology and scope. This does not make such control less significant: it provides continuous management of quality and processes. An independent survey provides an additional point of recording, particularly useful in disputed situations, in case of cargo damage or where objective data must be presented to several interested parties.
What is specific about an independent survey
An independent survey differs from internal control in that the specialist is not part of the client’s production department, warehouse or quality department. He carries out an agreed inspection and independently records the actual condition of the object within the task set.
The surveyor is not obliged to accept the enterprise’s internal assessment as a ready-made conclusion, but neither does he aim to refute it automatically. If the company reports that the batch was accepted without remarks, the specialist carries out his own inspection and describes what he observes at the specific moment.
Such an approach is particularly in demand when several parties are involved in the situation. In a dispute between the supplier, the carrier and the consignee, independent recording makes it possible to obtain a separate source of data and to compare it with the documents of the participants.
At the same time independence does not mean unlimited access to the object. Part of the cargo may be in a closed container, equipment may require special inspection conditions, and the necessary documents may be missing. That is why the report must show not only the signs identified but also the boundaries of the work carried out: what was inspected, which documents were studied and which procedures were not performed.
A survey may also have a narrow task: to check the number of units, the condition of the packaging, to record damage, to compare the marking with the documents or to inspect the equipment after transportation. A full quality audit is not part of the work in that case, unless it is provided for by the assignment.
A survey is particularly useful when an object is handed over between participants: after transportation, during loading and unloading, before repair begins or on handover of equipment. Photographs, marking, a description of the defects, and the date, time and place of the inspection make it possible to preserve the initial picture and to compare it with subsequent changes.
At the same time the surveyor records the observable facts and does not automatically establish the cause of each defect. Damage to the packaging can be described directly, but determining when it occurred will require an analysis of the conditions of loading, transportation, unloading and other available materials.
That is why the results of internal control and of a survey do not necessarily contradict each other. One document may reflect the conformity of the object with an internal procedure, the other the specific condition recorded by an independent specialist at a certain moment.
In that case an independent survey acts not as “control over control” but as an additional source of documented information. It may confirm part of the internal data, supplement it, or record circumstances that the initial check did not cover.
The purpose of the check
One of the main reasons for discrepancies between internal control and an independent survey is different purposes. That is why it is first necessary to determine which question each check answered. If the tasks differed, complete coincidence of the results should not be expected.
Internal control is usually connected with a specific production operation: acceptance of raw materials, admission of material to production, checking of products or control of equipment. Its result is needed primarily for taking an internal decision.
A survey may solve a different task – to record the condition of the cargo before handover, the quantity and marking of the units, damage to the packaging, traces of external exposure, or to preserve independent photo documentation. It is not obliged to reproduce the enterprise’s internal procedure.
For example, the quality department may carry out laboratory tests of raw materials and confirm that the tested parameters meet the requirements. Later a surveyor inspects the same batch and records damage to the packaging that arose or was identified in connection with a dispute about transportation. Both results may be reliable: the first answers the question about the quality of the material, the second about the condition of the cargo.
The same applies to equipment and quantity. Internal control may confirm its release for operation, whereas the survey will record mechanical damage to the housing. The warehouse may confirm the number of units received, while the surveyor records the condition of specific packages. These are different indicators of one object.
When comparing checks, the following are established first:
- which task each of them solved;
- what was considered the result;
- which object and scope were checked;
- when and under what conditions the inspection was carried out;
- which methods and initial data were used.
For internal control the result may be a decision of “accepted” or “requires an additional check”. A survey usually gives a description of the actual condition, the signs identified and the limitations of the inspection. These documents can complement each other, particularly in claims work.
Even with identical purposes the results may differ because of the time, the methodology, access to the object and the initial information. That is why the purpose of the check is only the first parameter of comparison.
Such an approach makes it possible not to turn a discrepancy between documents into a dispute between departments. First it is established what exactly each specialist checked, and then the conditions and the actual results are compared. In the end it becomes clearer which data complement each other and where an additional check is really required.
Different timing of the inspection as a cause of discrepancies
Even when the same batch is examined, the results of internal control and of a survey may differ because of the timing. Between the checks the cargo may be unloaded, moved, opened, cleaned, repaired or handed over to another department. Such actions can change the condition of the object or make a previously unnoticed defect obvious.
That is why the date in the report is not a formality. If the internal specialist inspected the cargo during unloading, and the surveyor arrived after it had been placed in the warehouse, they in fact assessed the object under different conditions.
This is particularly noticeable when working with packaging. After transportation it may retain traces of moisture, contamination or mechanical effects that will disappear after cleaning. And conversely, deformation hidden in the transport position may become visible after movement or removal of the protective elements.
Opening and change of the condition of the cargo
Internal control may be limited to an external inspection, whereas the surveyor gains access to the contents after opening and discovers hidden damage. The reverse situation is also possible: after unpacking, the initial position of the cargo and the condition of the protective materials can no longer be restored.
The same applies to repair. If the defect was eliminated between the checks, the subsequent inspection will show an already changed condition. The absence of damage in the surveyor’s report in that case does not prove that it did not exist earlier.
Some signs appear only over time. The effect of moisture, temperature and other conditions may become noticeable hours or days later, which is why a statement about the condition of the cargo on acceptance must rely on recorded data and not only on the recollections of employees.
How to restore the chronology
When the results diverge, it is necessary to establish not only the time of each check but also the events between them. Photographs, handover reports, warehouse records, transport documents, movement logs, notes on opening and repair documents may be useful sources.
The surveyor should record the time and place of the inspection, the condition of the object on arrival and the operations carried out immediately before the inspection. This makes it possible to separate the condition observed by the specialist from the changes that occurred earlier.
For potentially disputed acceptance, the company itself would do well to keep photographs and a description of the cargo before unloading, after it and after placement in the warehouse. Then a subsequent survey can be compared with a specific initial record.
Each check should be regarded as a recording of the condition of the object at a certain moment. Only by restoring the sequence of events can one understand whether two reports really contradict each other or describe a lawfully changed condition of the cargo.
Different scope and boundaries of the check
Another cause of discrepancies is that specialists may in fact be checking a different scope of the object. Formally both documents speak of the same batch or item of equipment, but one specialist inspects it selectively, another inspects specific cargo units, and a third gains access to individual assemblies for a detailed examination.
Internal control is usually carried out according to an established procedure. For a large batch it may provide for checking the quantity, the marking and the external condition according to a certain algorithm. An independent survey, by contrast, may be specifically directed at individual units or zones that raise questions.
For example, with a batch of several hundred units internal acceptance confirms the quantity and the absence of obvious problems, while the surveyor inspects a group of damaged packages in detail. The discovery of defects in that group does not refute the result of the general acceptance: the specialists worked with different parts of the batch and at different depth.
- The importance of sampling and identification
The wording “the batch has been checked” does not mean that every unit was examined in equal detail. In selective control it is necessary to understand which units exactly were checked.
For the results to be comparable, their identification matters: the number of the cargo unit or pallet, the marking, the serial number of the equipment and other signs make it possible to establish whether a later-detected defect relates to the same object that was inspected earlier.
- The boundaries of access
The result also depends on what was available to the specialist for inspection. An internal employee may open the packaging or dismantle the equipment under a production procedure, whereas the surveyor receives the object assembled and is limited to a visual inspection. The reverse situation is also possible.
That is why the absence of remarks in an external inspection does not confirm the absence of hidden defects. If the assignment provided only for checking the packaging, the result should be interpreted precisely within those limits.
When comparing two reports it is useful to determine which units, surfaces and assemblies were checked, which procedures were performed and what remained outside the inspection. Then it becomes clear whether the specialists really obtained different results or simply examined different parts of one object.
The very fact that two specialists worked with the same batch does not yet make their results comparable. For a correct comparison it is necessary to take into account the specific scope, the sample, the depth of the inspection and access to the object.
Different methods and assessment criteria
Even with the same object and time of inspection the results may differ because of the methodology. One specialist carries out a visual inspection, another takes measurements, a third uses laboratory data. Each method provides its own volume of information and makes it possible to draw different conclusions.
Internal control usually relies on the enterprise’s procedures: the established acceptance criteria, the classification of defects and the procedure for action when deviations are identified. An independent surveyor works to an agreed assignment, which may provide for a different sequence and depth of check.
For example, an internal document may contain the decision “released for use”, while the surveyor describes a specific deformation without assessing the fitness of the equipment. These results do not necessarily contradict each other: the first answers a production question, the second records an actual sign.
Visual inspection, measurements and laboratory data
The method determines the boundaries of the result obtained. A visual check makes it possible to describe the external condition but does not automatically confirm hidden defects or a change in the characteristics of the material. If internal control is based on laboratory analysis, its results cannot be directly compared with the surveyor’s visual observations.
In measurements, what matters is the specific point, the instrument and the conditions of the measurement. Two specialists may obtain different figures if they measured different areas or used different reference surfaces. That is why, when comparing, it is necessary to take into account not only the result but also the way it was obtained.
The sample also matters. One specimen or several checked units do not necessarily characterise the whole batch. The documents must make clear whether the conclusion relates to the whole object or only to the part examined.
How to compare results correctly
One should not compare only the final wordings such as “the condition is satisfactory” and “mechanical impact has been found”. First it is necessary to establish which primary signs each specialist recorded, which criteria he applied and what exactly was part of his task.
Differences in terminology can also create a false contradiction. The words “defect”, “damage”, “deviation” or “non-compliance” may have different meanings in the documents of the enterprise and of the surveyor. That is why the definitions and the context of their use must be taken into account.
The methodology must correspond to the task set. For recording the external condition before handover a visual inspection may be sufficient. To identify a hidden defect, to check a technical parameter or to confirm the properties of a material, measurements, tests or laboratory analysis may be required.
Before an independent survey it is useful to determine in advance which question needs to be resolved. If measurements, specific control points or comparison with technical documents are required, this should be included in the assignment.
A transparent description of the methodology improves comparability even when the checks were carried out in different ways. It makes it possible to understand which conclusions each result supports and where the capabilities of the method applied end.
Documents and initial data: who has which information
The result of a check is influenced not only by the condition of the object but also by the information available to the specialist before the inspection. An internal employee usually has the history of the delivery, previous reports, test results, information about storage and repairs, correspondence and internal requirements. An independent surveyor works with the documents and information handed over within the assignment.
That is why the same sign may be interpreted differently. For example, an internal engineer knows which assemblies of the equipment were replaced during repair and which changes are standard, whereas a surveyor without the relevant documents can only describe the observed condition.
The same applies to the cargo. An employee of the enterprise may know about an intermediate transshipment or previous damage, whereas an external specialist who has received only the transport documents does not have this information. It may substantially influence the assessment of the circumstances but must not replace the direct recording of the condition.
Identification and versions of documents
Before comparing results it is necessary to make sure that the specialists worked with the same object. The batch, container or cargo unit number or the serial number of the equipment make it possible to exclude a situation where data on different units are taken for a contradiction.
The version of the documents also matters. An updated specification, changed acceptance requirements or a new edition of the technical conditions may give different criteria for assessing one indicator. A similar problem arises if one specialist checks the object against an internal specification, while another checks it only against the packing list or the transport waybill.
Photographs and previous reports must also be tied to a specific object, date and time. Otherwise even informative material may prove unsuitable for an accurate comparison.
Fact and information provided
A separate distinction should be made between what the specialist established directly and the information reported by employees or stated in documents. For example, an assertion that damage occurred during transportation does not become a proven fact merely because it is contained in an internal report.
The surveyor may take such information into account as initial data and separately record the actual condition of the object. If an internal document speaks of conformity with requirements, it is necessary to establish which requirements, by which indicators and by which method the check was carried out.
That is why, before an independent inspection, it is advisable to provide a single package of initial materials: documents for the object, identifiers, previous photographs, the results of internal checks and the known circumstances. This reduces the risk of discrepancies caused by an incomplete or different information base.
At the same time the documents must not predetermine the result of the survey. They help to identify the object correctly and to understand its history, while the specialist records the actual condition directly during the independent inspection.
If the initial data differ, it is precisely them that must be checked first. An outdated document, an error in an identifier or a missing photograph can create an apparent contradiction where in fact incomparable information is being compared.
How to determine where the discrepancy arose
If internal control and an independent survey have given different results, it is not the final wordings that must be compared but the whole path of obtaining the data. The task is to determine at which stage the discrepancy arose: in the identification of the object, in the time of the inspection, the scope of the check, the methodology, the initial documents, or already after a change in the condition of the cargo.
First it is necessary to make sure that the specialists examined the same object. For cargo the batch, container and pallet numbers and the marking are compared, for equipment the serial number, the model and the configuration.
Then the chronology is restored: when each check was carried out and which operations took place between them. Unloading, movement, opening, repair or other effects may change the condition of the object and explain part of the differences.
The next step is a comparison of the scope of the inspection. It is necessary to establish how many units were checked, which areas were accessible, what was opened and whether sampling was applied. Checking the whole batch and a detailed inspection of several damaged units produce results of a different nature.
After that the methodologies are compared: the points and instruments of measurement, the assessment criteria, the laboratory procedures and the limitations that existed. Different methods make it possible to answer different questions, so their results cannot always be compared directly.
The initial documents are checked separately: specifications, packing lists, previous reports, photographs and other materials available to each specialist. Then the primary observations are separated from the conclusions. For example, the presence of deformation is an established fact, whereas an assessment of its effect on the fitness of the cargo requires additional grounds.
After such an analysis it sometimes becomes clear that there is no contradiction at all. Two specialists may have described one sign in different terms or used different units of account. That is why the factual data are compared first, and only then the differences in wording are assessed.
If the result is genuinely incompatible, a repeat or joint inspection may be required. For a repeat check the disputed parameters are determined in advance and, where possible, the initial conditions are reproduced.
When the condition of the object has already changed, a repeat inspection will not restore the initial picture. In that case the photographs, reports, measurement records and documents preserved before the change of condition are analysed.
One should not resolve a substantive discrepancy by simply choosing one of the two reports. If the data are insufficient, repeat measurements, laboratory analysis, a technical examination or the restoration of the chronology of operations may become grounds for an additional check.
What to do if internal control and a survey have given different results
Different results do not mean that one of the documents must be cancelled at once. First both reports and the initial materials on which they are based should be preserved. Correcting or replacing the initial records without recording the changes will only complicate the subsequent analysis.
Then the specific discrepancy must be formulated. Instead of a general statement about a contradiction, the disputed parameter should be defined: the number of units, the presence of damage, the dimensions of the defect, the identification of the object, the condition of the packaging or another indicator.
After that the conditions of the two checks are compared: the date and time, the place, access to the object, the scope of the inspection, the documents and the methodology. At the same time the established fact and its interpretation are separated. If both specialists recorded the same deformation, the dispute concerns no longer its presence but the assessment of its significance or consequences.
If necessary, explanations of the report can be requested from the surveyor: which area was inspected, which measurements were taken, which documents were used and which limitations existed. The internal report should be checked in the same way – its procedure, the scope of control and the criteria applied.
If a substantial discrepancy remains after that, an additional check is appointed with specifically defined disputed parameters. A repeat inspection must not turn into yet another general inspection, otherwise a new set of data will appear which will also be difficult to compare with the initial results.
In complex situations it is useful to distribute the tasks among the participants in advance: the quality specialist assesses conformity with the established parameters, the warehouse employee deals with identification and the movement of the batch, the technical specialist with the condition of the equipment, and the surveyor provides independent recording.
Before the repeat check it is important to preserve the condition of the object. Damaged cargo should not be repaired, cleaned or moved without recording, if this may affect the disputed question. If the initial condition has already changed, the analysis is carried out on the surviving photographs, reports, electronic records and documents on movement or storage.
As a result it is not necessary to achieve identical wordings in the two reports. It is more important to establish what exactly was recorded, when, in what way, on which object and on the basis of which data. If part of the question remains unresolved for lack of information, this should be stated directly.
Such an approach makes it possible to regard internal control and an independent survey as two sources of data that complement each other. Instead of choosing one “correct” report, the company obtains a consistent picture of events and understands which additional information is really needed for a final assessment of the situation.
How to document a discrepancy correctly
If internal control and an independent survey have given different results, the discrepancy itself should also be recorded. It is not enough to state that “the data do not match”: both initial documents must be preserved and it must be described which information exactly differs and under what conditions it was obtained.
First of all the chronology is restored and the object is identified. For each check the date, time and place, the condition of the object and the circumstances of access to it are stated. The batch, container, cargo unit or pallet numbers or the serial numbers of the equipment make it possible to make sure that the same units are being compared. All substantial operations between the checks – unloading, movement, opening, repair – are also included in the chronology.
Then the scope and the methodology are compared. It is necessary to establish whether the whole batch or a sample was checked, which areas and assemblies were accessible, and whether the disputed parameter was assessed visually, by measurement, by laboratory analysis or from documents. For measurements the data that make it possible to verify the procedure if necessary are retained.
Photo documentation is linked to a specific object and place where the sign was found. For damage it is useful to have a general shot for identifying the cargo unit and a detailed photograph of the defect itself.
Observation and conclusion are separated. An entry about deformation of the packaging describes an established sign, whereas a statement about its cause or its effect on the fitness of the goods requires additional substantiation. External damage does not by itself automatically confirm an internal defect or the unfitness of the cargo.
For disputed situations it is convenient to draw up a comparison table that does not replace the primary documents. It may include:
- the identifier of the object;
- the date, time and place of the check;
- the scope and the sample;
- the methodology and the initial documents;
- the signs and measurements recorded;
- photo documentation;
- the limitations of the inspection;
- the subsequent actions with the object.
Such a structure helps to determine at which level the discrepancy arose. If the object or the conditions of the check differ, it is premature to compare the results directly. If the initial conditions coincide and different values were obtained for one area, it already makes sense to analyse the methodology and the accuracy of the measurements.
The initial versions of the documents must be preserved even after corrections are made. It must be clear when and why the document changed. This makes it possible to restore the history of its formation and excludes the substitution of initial data.
The wording must remain neutral. Instead of stating that one of the parties made an error, it is more correct to indicate that internal control did not record a particular sign found during the subsequent inspection, and to describe the conditions of both checks separately.
A correctly documented discrepancy does not establish who is at fault but records the difference between two results. The more accurately the initial conditions and materials are preserved, the easier it is to establish the cause of the discrepancy without subjective assumptions.
How to reduce the likelihood of discrepancies
It is impossible to exclude differences between internal control and an independent survey entirely. But a company can substantially reduce the likelihood of incomparable results if it establishes in advance a single procedure for identifying objects, recording their condition and transferring the initial data.
All documents, photographs and records should be tied to a specific cargo unit, pallet, container or item of equipment. This is particularly important with large batches of identical cargo, where without precise marking it is easy to compare different objects.
The condition should preferably be recorded before unloading, movement, opening or other operations capable of changing it. If it is impossible to carry out the inspection beforehand, the sequence of the actions performed must be preserved in the documents.
It is also useful to establish a single procedure for photo documentation: a general shot, the identification marking, the disputed area and, if necessary, a scale reference. For regularly measured parameters it is worth determining the points and the method of measurement in advance.
A clear assignment and initial data
Before the survey begins it is necessary to determine clearly what exactly is to be established or recorded. Then the specialist will not be forced to solve tasks that were not part of the agreed scope of the inspection.
The surveyor is given the up-to-date documents needed to identify the object and to understand the context. However, these materials remain initial data: the independent specialist records the actual condition himself during the inspection.
Internal documents are also more useful if they contain specific observations. The wording “a dent of the following size has been found” gives considerably more information for the subsequent analysis than a general reference to damage.
Common rules and dealing with discrepancies
Common terms and criteria help to avoid a situation where the same observation is described by different departments as a “defect”, “damage” or “non-compliance”. It is no less important to preserve the history of movement, opening, repair and other operations with the object.
The company can also determine in advance the procedure for action in case of a discrepancy: who preserves the object and the documents, who arranges a repeat inspection and in which cases technical or laboratory specialists are involved. This reduces the time spent on organisational matters when a disputed situation has already arisen.
A periodic analysis of such cases makes it possible to identify systemic causes. If discrepancies regularly appear with a certain type of cargo or operation, it is worth checking the photo documentation used, the measurement points, the identification procedure and other elements of the procedure.
At the same time internal control and an independent survey do not need to be artificially made identical. Their tasks and depth of check may differ. The goal is different – to ensure a clear link between the object, the time, the methodology and the result of each check. Then the differences become easier to explain, and the analysis focuses on facts rather than on choosing the “main” report.
LVS Global carries out survey and inspection work for the independent recording of the condition of cargo, equipment and other objects of supply. Specialists can work on acceptance, dispatch and handover of cargo, document damage and compare the actual condition with the available materials.
If you need to compare internal control with an independent inspection, to record damage or to sort out discrepancies between documents, the scope of the check is determined on the basis of the specific task and the characteristics of the object – please contact us. The more precisely the object, the moment and the purpose of the inspection are determined in advance, the more useful the data obtained will be.
