Just some musings:

The auditor action which triggered this thread really depresses me. We know there are "strong personalities" (like Marc, Randy, Wes Bucey, Rob Nixon, Bill Pflanz, et al) who would have thrown this "would-be auditor" out on his ear if he tried that in our shop.

I would have demanded all fees which had anything to do with such a clown back from the registrar. My fellow executives and stockholders would have backed my play.

What happens, though, when no one screams FOUL! at such an action? I know why they wouldn't -

little top management support to begin with;
customers who DEMAND the registration as the price of doing business;
the "no big deal" thing (since it didn't result in a nonconformance)
uncertainty about whether we, the organization, or the auditor is correct
and so on.
In another thread, Sidney suggested a customer should be aware of the quality of the registrar and its auditors who are attesting to the conformance of a QMS. I said something to the effect (ala "Chico and the Man") - "That's not my job!"

This thread, though, has caused me to modify my position a little. It may NOT be my job, but perhaps we need a central clearing house which "names names" so that customers and potential auditees have a little stronger information base to search about issues like this one or others which never make it to the Cove. I'd sure like to hear "the rest of the story" including the auditor's reasoning and his point of view.

I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't want that auditor coming to my shop until he had a "serious attitude adjustment."

The main problem I see with such a clearing house is that many of the complaints would be invalid or improperly documented. I'm definitely reminded of product rejections and CARs sent by customers which proved to be completely unfounded, but which caused a lot of wasted time and motion plus many hurt feelings. The truth is, there are organizations which do not deserve to be registered to an ISO Standard.

So, here's the quandary:

How do we protect ourselves from getting an incompetent auditor?
What can we do to alert others about "suspicious" characters in the auditing business without leaving ourselves and our organizations open to libel and slander suits?
What can we do when we are being victimized by an incompetent auditor, but don't have the personality and status within our organizations to get management backing for a protest?
I don't think the accrediting bodies have an adequate mechanism to deal with and publicize the complaint and the subsequent resolution.

So, here's the quandary:

How do we protect ourselves from getting an incompetent auditor?
What can we do to alert others about "suspicious" characters in the auditing business without leaving ourselves and our organizations open to libel and slander suits?
What can we do when we are being victimized by an incompetent auditor, but don't have the personality and status within our organizations to get management backing for a protest?
I don't think the accrediting bodies have an adequate mechanism to deal with and publicize the complaint and the subsequent resolution.
Great post, Wes.
You know, there is a website creating a lot of interest and discussion called www.ratemyteachers.com (http://www.ratemyteachers.com/) in which students can grade their respective teachers all over the country. Maybe Marc could create something like ratemyauditor.com http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/eek.gif

Some of the problems would be liability, transparency, confidentiality and also the fact that, many, many people would give great reviews to mediocre auditors hoping to artificially boost that auditor's rating just to show to their bosses that they have the "best auditor in the Universe" http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/omg.gif . Something similar happened to the "rate the registrars surveys". On the other extreme, people being very appropriately written up for poor systems could use this as a way of getting back at the (good) auditors.

Great post, Wes.
You know, there is a website creating a lot of interest and discussion called www.ratemyteachers.com (http://www.ratemyteachers.com/) in which students can grade their respective teachers all over the country. Maybe Marc could create something like ratemyauditor.com http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/eek.gif

Some of the problems would be liability, transparency, confidentiality and also the fact that, many, many people would give great reviews to mediocre auditors hoping to artificially boost that auditor's rating just to show to their bosses that they have the "best auditor in the Universe" http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/omg.gif . Something similar happened to the "rate the registrars surveys". On the other extreme, people being very appropriately written up for poor systems could use this as a way of getting back at the (good) auditors.As I said,
The main problem I see with such a clearing house is that many of the complaints would be invalid or improperly documented. I'm definitely reminded of product rejections and CARs sent by customers which proved to be completely unfounded, but which caused a lot of wasted time and motion plus many hurt feelings. The truth is, there are organizations which do not deserve to be registered to an ISO Standard.
the rating alone would not be adequate - too easy to skew the results.

There definitely would have to be a mechanism with "depth" (point by point reasons behind a rating) and some protection for auditor against libel, slander by vindictive types as well as some mechanism to protect person doing the rating against retaliation by lawsuits.

In my opinion, the accrediting body should be MUCH MORE OPEN AND COMMUNICATIVE with the public about the process of dealing with complaints.

What is the process, for example?

If RosieA complained to the registrar for whom the auditor works, how soon should such a complaint be resolved to RosieA's satisfaction before RosieA goes to the accrediting body?
When RosieA ultimately goes to the accrediting body, what do they do?
(write an inquiry back to the registrar like the Better Business Bureau?)
If they investigate, how do we know it's not a "whitewash"?
(Should there be a detailed, reasoned report? Who should be allowed to see reports? Can there be a public record of the reports?)
How soon should RosieA expect results?
Should the accrediting body have power of arbitration? (like NASD or SEC dealing with bad stockbrokers?)
I think I'm going to watch some mindless entertainment on TV - this is too much like work!

NOTE: because of the significant tangent of the thread, I split this off of http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=10146

Wes,

First of all, let me make two things perfectly clear, 1) I am not a crook, and 2 ) it is Nix, not Nixon. :lol:

Second, this is a very good thread. I think I’ll add a few points whether they answer any of the questions or not.

There is a mechanism within each registrar’s organization that helps them get feedback about their auditors: a survey that allows your organization to express itself; to disagree with the findings of the auditor. My registrar also has both a continuous improvement survey and a customer satisfaction survey on its web site as well (I’m sure other registrars have something similar). NOTE: RosieA - Did you send your survey in with your concerns expressed?

I used the surveys (and supporting E-Mails) twice with the same auditor and eventually had him removed from the list of auditors auditing our facility. When I moved on to another company, I used the same registrar with the stipulation that they not assign that particular auditor.

The two incidents involved were likewise trivial.
1) A Shipping and Receiving person used a tape measure to identify one product from another similar one. There was a two inch difference. The auditor tended to be intimidating and often used leading questions. In this case he asked, “So, you use that tape measure to inspect the two similar parts, right?” The Receiving guy stammered, “Uh, yeah, I guess”. The auditor said that since the tape measure was an “inspection” device, it had to come under calibration control - which it did not - and a minor was written (I got it removed).
2) A sound meter was written up by the auditor for not having epoxy affixed to the adjustment screw “to prevent inadvertent adjustment”. I explained that the screw was placed in a recessed hole by design for that very purpose! Same result as incident number one. The big problem was that this guy intimidated our people, making them nervous and unsure what he was driving at; they’d “slip up”, and he prided himself on “catching them”.

While this method only addresses the concerns Wes raises to the registrar level, it is something. Perhaps an expansive list of trivial issues could be built somewhere that could be forwarded to RAB. They could filter out the “valids” from the “invalids” and send letters of clarification downstream to the registrars and auditing organizations. It doesn’t directly deal with the offending auditors, but perhaps they’ll receive this information and modify their practices. Like I said earlier, this may not answer the original question, they’re simply my rambling thoughts.

I have still not decided whether I have been insulted or complimented by the strong personality description. At least I am in good company. :D

I have challenged bad auditing findings by working directly with the auditor's manager. Unfortunately, the same auditor was auditing other parts of my company and their ISO representatives were also complaining. Finally, one of them threatened to file a formal complaint with the registrar if she was not removed as an auditor. I think they just stopped using her at our company and sent her to another client. It solved our problem but some poor quality manager out there got stuck with her.

I wonder how many ISO auditors get their auditing certifications revoked so they cannot impose themselves on other poor, unsuspecting clients of the same registrar or another.

Bill Pflanz

No offence intended but............

NOTE: RosieA - Did you send your survey in with your concerns expressed?

Hi Rob,
Now that you mention it, this Registrar, one of 4 I've worked with, does NOT hand out satisfaction surveys at the end of the audit. I haven't been to their website to see if there is one posted there, but I will. Good point.

Rosie

No offence intended but............

:lmao: You're absolutely right, Sal, and teasing me about this for two days showed just how much he enjoyed wrestling!

No offence intended but............I'm not the only one with brain freeze:rolleyes:
If you were to shout beacon you may get a different reaction.(my italics)
I think "bacon" is the intent.

Wes,

First of all, let me make two things perfectly clear, 1) I am not a crook, and 2 ) it is Nix, not Nixon. :lol:

Ah, yes. My esteemed colleague, Rob, who has gracefully pointed out my brain freezes in the past and even more graciously accepted pointers on his own.

In defense, :o I had presidents on the brain after watching clips of the opening of Clinton's library.

The point of the thread (thanks, Marc, for splitting) is that other customers are unaware of "missteps" by individual auditors or by registrar organizations. So, whether you are shopping for a registrar for your own organization or (Sidney's view) you want to "guesstimate" the value of a prospective supplier's registration, you have no reliable database to check.

How would you propose we remedy that lack - the internal registrar review may only shunt the individual auditor to another client, or, at worst, another registrar. Does the registrar have the equivalent of "product recall" to go back over previous audits by the individual auditor under suspicion to determine if other clients were similarly treated?

There are clearing houses of sorts...we call them Accreditation bodies (RAB etc)

I've always recommended that people ask for resumes and credentials when hiring an auditor, consultant or whatever. In the case of auditors, I'd hesitate to use an organization that wouldn't supply them if asked.

Auditing is a skill and an art that has to be developed and tempered, where each individual will have a stong side and a weak side. My strong side is documentation and my weak is interviewing (they always turn into interrogations and I want to break out the rubber hose)

(they always turn into interrogations and I want to break out the rubber hose)

Not that there's anything wrong with that.