This new entity will be involved with personnel certification. For more details, check *** DEAD LINK REMOVED ***

For the benefit of some:

ISO/IEC 17024:2003 General requirements for bodies operating certification of persons

The new era of personnel certification…

Following recent advice to our respective key stakeholders and customers regarding the merger of QSA International, the Quality Society of Australasia (QSA) with the US-based Registrar Accreditation Board (RAB), I am pleased to advise that our progress in the transition from independent organisations to ‘RABQSA International’, the world’s leading accredited personnel certification body, is moving rapidly to conclusion.

The new organisation will come into effect 1 January 2005. Principal offices will be located in Milwaukee and Sydney, with Joint Venture offices located in Tokyo, Taipei, Hanoi, Kuala Lumpur and Auckland. Expansion into Mexico and Canada is planned for 2005.

This is the first in a series of News Releases that will provide you with a progressive update on the merger transition plan, and the service profile and operations of RABQSA International in 2005.

Background….

ISO/IEC 17024:2003 General Requirements for Bodies Operating Certification of Persons was released 1 April 2003. The impact of this new Standard on the personnel certification industry has been profound.

The unique benefit of the Standard is that, for the first time, the issue of personnel competence has been taken seriously. At the core of the Standard is the requirement for the Accredited Personnel Certification Body (RABQSA) to determine Industry’s requirements, then define, measure and objectively examine personnel competence. The down line benefits of clearly articulating industry’s expectations of personnel performance, is that the alignment of the competence of the person to the achievement of defined business outcomes, is now the essential first step in the certification process.

Determining and examining competence is about the recognition of persons with the required knowledge, skills, personal attributes and qualifications, to satisfy industry’s requirements. This will have a significant and positive impact on business performance, and the fundamental value and relevance of personnel certification.

IATCA is moving in the same direction using the competency-based certification method. IRCA may follow. This is the link.

http://www.irca.org/news/news_pressrelease15.html

-Tony Yeung

I hope this thread continues because of the *very* important information as to where 'personnel certification' is headed.

I've long viewed the RAB as a 'rogue' group. Whether or not this 'merger' lends legitimacy to the 'status' of the RAB remains to be seen.

I'm IRCA and have avoided the RAB like the plague.

Discussion appreciated.

Marc, I have a few comments about this thread.

First, the title should be changed and the mention to “Registrar requirements” should be deleted, imo. Registrars are NOT required to have their auditors certified by RABQSA, IRCA or any other Body operating a personnel certification Scheme.

ISO Guides 62, 66 and the upcoming ISO 17021 require Registrars to determine competence of their personnel, including auditors, but it is up to the Certification Bodies to determine their own specific requirements for auditor competence.

Second, the link that I had posted originally is dead. So, you might want to edit. I did not find any equivalent link in the RABQSA site.

Third, the statement contained in the press release
“…The unique benefit of the Standard is that, for the first time, the issue of personnel competence has been taken seriously … "
makes me wonder. Wasn’t personnel competence taken seriously before? http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/bonk.gif

I think what they mean is the previous process was “qualification-based” and now they are migrating to “competence-based”. But it just doesn’t sound right… http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/no.gif

Title changed and dead link removed. Thanks for the 'Heads Up', Sidney!

I don't know what to think in general. Sometimes it appears that a group of people 'in power', if you will, band together, announce they are 'the' resource (or whatever - such as the RAB) and no one questions who they are and what their qualifications are to be what they announce they are. Like a standard detergent commercial, the announcement always includes the 'New and Improved' statement in one form or another.

I don't know what to think in general. Sometimes it appears that a group of people 'in power', if you will, band together, announce they are 'the' resource (or whatever - such as the RAB) and no one questions who they are and what their qualifications are to be what they announce they are. Like a standard detergent commercial, the announcement always includes the 'New and Improved' statement in one form or another.


As is well known for many years I have been critical of the standard of service offered by "Registrars" and indeed of the general standard of auditing extant in industry, especially by those "certified" under the existing schemes. Also I have urged from the outset that auditor competence requires demonstrated proof the individual can perform their duties correctly. Classroom examinations, especially of the "multiple choice" type offer insufficient comfort that the person actually can apply whatever knowledge they have.

I began training "auditors" back in the 1970s and always included an examination at the end of the course: most clients wanted that to be optional for the delegates but advised their staff as to the correct "interpretation" of the word "optional". The examinations were always, are and will remain "closed book" matters, as I have always argued it is unlikely the auditor will carry around a set of training notes or copy of the text book issued to them and normal restraints of time would preclude them looking up "what to do next". (Indeed, if they should actually do so, their credibility in the eyes of auditees would likely take a hit!

I welcome the move towards requiring those needing certification to be assessed for competence in a manner beyond a simple classroom test. Requiring the candidate to actually prepare, fact gather and report the results of an audit is a superior form of verification: just as the ancient guilds required an apprentice to produce a "master piece" for consideration by master-craftsmen as a prerequisite for becoming, themselves, a "master". Quite a few of my clients have required me to do this since the early 1980s and serious people have indeed been pleased for this to be done as it has provided them with additional confidence in their ability to undertake their assigned audit tasks. Moreover, the "apprentices" always enjoyed the experience of a hands-on test.

If these moves do indeed improve the quality of service delivered to the audit client one must be delighted. It would be consistent with the general idea of continuous professional development and of continuous improvement. If properly conceived and rigorous;ly executed, I do believe it will significantly raise the standard of work delivered by registrars and actually enhance their business. Moreover, the consequential benefit could well be management and others respecting auditing as a whole and quality programs in particular in a more favourable light than is often the case at present. The key word is "could" and the proviso is as just stated.

So, one must remain cautious about the manner in which the competence will be assessed, the schemes will be administered. One must also hope this is not an attempt to give birth to another supposed "cash cow".

What would be of doubtful utility would be any suggestion that company's internal auditors must be certified by external bodies involved with the new IPC. It is for the company itself to determine its needs for its own auditors and how they will be considered as "competent" to perform their duties. "Taxation" by stealth would be unacceptable: i.e. trying to mandate competence certification of the firm's internal auditors by such affiliated/ accredited bodies as a condition of ISO 9001 certification. There is already considerable grumbling about the overall costs of ISO 9001 registration (whether one regards that grumbling as merited ot otherwise) and mandating such certification on internal auditors would be unhelpful.

To change the subject: as some Covers may have noted, I have been away or almost 3 months owing to serious family crises :( and also pressure of work. This latter has included preparation for delivering the keynote address at the March 2005 Audit conference being organized by the ASQ: details are on the ASQ's website. If any Covers are going, I would be most pleased to meet them, perhaps share an "imbibement" and put faces to names. :)

IATCA is moving in the same direction using the competency-based certification method. IRCA may follow. This is the link.

http://www.irca.org/news/news_pressrelease15.html

-Tony Yeung
I find IRCA's position very interesting and more realistic:
They seem to be waiting for the customers to tell them what they want, before developing a Scheme with no input from the user's community.
But let's make no mistakes. This whole issue might have tremendous impact on both RABQSA and IRCA's business model.

What is IRCA’s position?
Our approach is, as ever, to contribute value by providing what users want. And as at this time, it is not clear what they want. The situation so far is that we have a new accreditation standard (ISO 17024) that requires auditor certification bodies to apply a much more rigorous approach. But already it is clear there is little consistency between the different accreditation bodies in how they interpret and implement this standard. This is bound to lead to variation in the levels at which auditors are certified which, because the differing standards will all be ‘accredited’, will confuse the users.
The majority of certification bodies/registrars we have talked to do not intend to do anything until it is clear that the competency-based certification contributes clear benefits to them. Currently, we are talking to a range of stakeholders (including accreditation bodies) and drafting criteria options based on what we understand customers want, and in accordance with how the accreditation body interprets 17024. In other words, what our customers want and what the accreditation body allows us to offer!
We are also contributing our expertise to the two new IAF working groups tasked with looking at auditing within a third-party environment, and how ISO 17024 can be interpreted and applied internationally. We believe a structural approach to this new initiative is best. Once we have achieved agreement across a broad range of stakeholders (accreditation bodies, certification bodies/registrars, auditors and users of auditors) as to what an ISO 17024 competency-based system means, i.e. how the standard should be interpreted and implemented, then we will be in a much better position to develop and offer meaningful criteria. By meaningful we mean a certification that will be accepted, valued and recognized.

One must beware reproducing so much of the IRCA's material as their release clearly claims copyright.

However: the passage reproduced here by Sidney does bring a smile if one thinks about the words and sentiments expressed within it. As an example, is not the fact that a document is accorded "ISO" status meant to imply a committee of supposed learned experts drawn from the international community and drawing on input from their various constituencies have written and authorised the release of their epistle such that it IS able to be "applied internationally" as well as being "interpreted" internationally. If the IRCA is having some difficulty in working through that problem, perhaps they should request those who wrote the missive to clarify it with a revised version?

They acknowledge the problem that the "certification bodies" are having differing views about the interpretation of the standard. If those bodies were actually represented on the particular ISO committe that produced the thing, what would that infer about their participation? If they were not involved, surely they should have made contributions through the requisite channels and drawn to the attention of that ISO committee the probability of ambiguity and disagreement in practice. And, in the end, what kind of an advertisement is that all for the quality or auditing "profession"?

The IRCA's release is somewhat disturbing in its deeper implications. But, it is right to make known its views: they are welcome.

Interesting that this thread should pop up today - I attended a local ASQ meeting last night, and the topic of the new RABQSA certification scheme came up after the meeting. The opinion was expressed that it would increase the competency of auditors, and we shared some comments regarding auditors who were less than stellar.

The opinion was also expressed that it would result in at least a temporary decrease in the auditor pool, and a possible increase in the cost per day of an auditor to the auditee, back to the area of a typical consulting professional of around $100 & up an hour.

I believe some companies will balk - more interested in a certificate and zero nonconformances than nonconformances and an improved system. The situation should be quite interesting over the next 6 months to a year as these changes play out.

To further increase auditor effictiveness in identifying problem areas for clients, and improving their management systems would it also make sense to limit the number of years one auditor audits a company? I know even internally, if I look at the same department too often on a regular basis I get a little too comfortable with their habits and I think they benefit by having another auditor review their processes and compliance to our management system.

To further increase auditor effictiveness in identifying problem areas for clients, and improving their management systems would it also make sense to limit the number of years one auditor audits a company? A client who was with Entela since 1997 went through the first surveillance under Intertek yesterday and the auditor specifically stated that Intertek is taking that approach - Not at every audit, but (if I remember correctly) every 3 years.