I just checked out the new RABQSA criteria for Competency-based QMS auditor certification. I've done a quick read-through, and so far the impression I have is that it's very complicated, it's designed to generate additional training opportunities for RABQSA, and that it's significantly more expensive than the system as operated under RAB prior to the merger.

Anybody else have any opinions os far?

I've been slowly working towards registration as an ISO 9001:2000 lead auditor, by taking the ASQ CQA test and then the 16 hr lead auditor training from RAB while working as a quality engineer in a Tier 2 automotive supplier located in Pennsylvania. Right now, I'm split between continuing to pursue that certification through RABQSA or choosing to try to achieve that goal through IRCA, whose current requirements appear to be both less expensive and more based in the real world. Does anyone on the Cove have experience as to whether there is a bias against IRCA registered auditors within the United States?

Here's the perception that I've developed over the last few years....nobody really gives a rip.

It is the opinion of some of the folks that are in my more frequent "circles" that the IRCA ticket carries with it a taste that is more palatable and valid because of the real world approach taken.

Personally, I have been seriously considering changing my present ticket to IRCA and going after IRCA's OHSAS certification as well.

I am with Randy. IRCA, RABQSA, IATCA are just confusing acronyms for the non-initiated. Nobody pays attention to auditor credentials... And like Randy already stated several times in this forum: Contrary to what many people believe, auditors representing accredited registrars do not have to have such credentials, in order to perform their duties.

Some registrars insist that their auditors attain and maintain such credentials, but, technically, it is not a requirement of ISO Guides 62, 66 nor ISO 19011.

Personally, I am for changes in the way that management system auditors are tested in order to demonstrate their competence, but I guess only time will tell if this new route delivers significantly better results.

The archaic methodology we have been using so far to "train and test" lead auditor candidates begs to be revamped. So, who knows, this system that RABQSA is introducing might yield better auditors http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/zz.gif

Randy & Sidney - I appreciate the information in your replies.
Part of my concerns regarding RABQSA's new approach is the partial reliance on a psychological profile generated through an on-line test. I believe I'd pass it, but consider the accuracy/repeatibility of such tools to be questionable and intrusive. I've also seen too many times over the years where companies relied on similar tools, and have been burned by new employees who passed them with flying colors and turned out to be extremely poor choices.

I've got to believe that auditing itself would tend to weed out the poorer performers. If I truly felt the new approach would significantly increase the expertise of auditors, I'd probably support it. The impression I have so far is that it's more bureaucracy without added value - the antithesis of lean. Should be an interesting thread - I hope to see some more responses.

Kevin, last week I had a chance to attend a presentation by a representative of the RABQSA. As part of the process to make auditor approval a competence-based program, versus the present qualification-based program, the RABQSA will institute a witness audit step in auditor approval. The difference, if I understood the new process correctly, is that the witnessing agent will have to be designated by the RABQSA and the fees for the witness audit have been set @ US$400. Remember, this is on top of the training and the on-line psychometric testing.
I wonder if they will succeed in selling this new competency-based program. The conundrum is that with the enforcement of ISO/IEC 17024, only competency-based personnel certification programs can be accredited.
Like I said before. What a tangled web we weave.......http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/confused.gif

Part of the problem is defining "competence", which the RABQSA hasn't. Defining competence is like defining beauty when dealing with an abstract like auditing.

The RABQSA is offering an alternative which is the "non-accredited" certification scheme.

I received an offer from the RABQSA, as did many other Lead Auditors, to be one of the "competency assessors" but I declined due to potential COI with my employer.

This new RABQSA Audit certification is going to help a lot of auditors like me working as internal auditor and don't have external auditing experience. I tried for years offering free audits to companies to satisfy the RAB requirement. I was thinking about quiting an excellent job and work as a supplier QA engineer just to get my RAB Auditor certification. Now looks like I don't have to.

That's just my way of looking at this new certification process. We don't have to show external auditing experience. I am waiting for a call from RABQSA to confirm it. I like to get some comment from others. Thanks.

Sidney & Randy, again thanks for the continued input. My initial post was prompted by acquiring the new requirements and reviewing them - seeing the introduction of the psychometric testing, plus the added cost and complexity of having a witness audit of the applying auditor. At age 50+, I'm skeptical of the value added by making systems more complex. I've experienced auditors from 2 different registrars plus A2LA, over 3 different companies, and a time span of 17 years. Over all that time, many had some idiosyncrasies but most did not let them affect their auditing. In fact, I can think of only 1 who did, and we "fired" him after our initial registration audit to ISO 9001:2000 & QS-9000.

It may be to early to ask. If you have taken the "Skill Test" to get certifed as the new RABQSA Auditor, please give us some feedback on the test. Did you travel to another city to take the test? Were you given a lot of test sites? How was your "skill" tested? .............

I can't comment on the latest version of the test. I took the RAB ISO 9001:2000 16 hour certified lead auditor course last April. (I already had my CQA from ASQ.) I felt that the course was interesting, it reinforced some of my beliefs/experiences. I passed the test given at the end of the course - I always feel a little stressed during tests, partly because I usually finish before most others do - it makes me wonder if I missed anything. I felt the test was challenging, but not extremely difficult. (I happened to have a simlar feeling for the AIAG QS-9000 internal auditor training I received at a former employer - no problem passing the test per AIAG standards, though our corporate rate (we brought in AIAG for dedicated training) was less than 60%.

I haven't decided yet what to do with the certificate - the old RAB method was relatively easy to register as an auditor. I'm skeptical of the new changes made - not certain that they will increase auditor competency. Personally they almost feel to me like the entrance fees to a medieval guild. I checked IRCA, and currently their registration appears to be easier.

Hope the info helps some.

. . . I'm skeptical of the new changes made - not certain that they will increase auditor competency. Personally they almost feel to me like the entrance fees to a medieval guild. I checked IRCA, and currently their registration appears to be easier.

Hope the info helps some.
Do you have any ideas on WHAT would increase auditor competency? Would you care to share?

Is the question in your mind one of raising the bar extremely high (like a medieval guild where you have to put in an exceedingly long apprenticeship at slave wages), to keep out too many competing auditors? If yes, what would be your suggestion for a workable alternate?

As an employer of auditors, I am vitally interested in getting competent auditors, but I also want the biggest bang for my buck. I don't want to think I am being faced with a smaller pool of competent auditors whose claim to competency is they managed to come up with increased fees, who in turn will charge me higher fees to recoup their cost of "competency."

Wes - some very good questions. I want to think about them and try to post late this evening from home. I admit to being slightly biased - I'm approaching the topic from an interest in trying to convert the lead auditor course into a full time quality auditing position for a registrar. I've been directly involved in internal auditing & supplier auditing for the last 14 years with increasing emphasis on the quality management part of business. Quality systems I've been involved have beeen based on: ISO 9001:1994, ISO 9001:2000, QS-9000, ISO Guide 25 (precursor to Guide 17025), and ISO/TS 16949. More later.

Do you have any ideas on WHAT would increase auditor competency? Would you care to share?


I will offer from the accreditation world a bit about competency of auditors (called assessors or evaluators in this world).....

An assessment (audit) has two components.....QMS and technical. The QMS auditor can be a 9K auditor trained in the ISO/IEC 17025 Standard, but the technical portion MUST be accomplished by someone with a technical background in what is being audited. In other words (going from my days when I dealt with 9K) someone experienced in machine shop tooling cannot audit a chemical laboratory or a wood truss manufacturer, without specific training and experience. Oversight can be substituted for some degree of experience initially until sufficient experience is built up.

That is not a perfect way to assure a more competent auditor, but I think it tends to get a bit closer and more consistent, as the background is a closer match.

Having said that, when I dealt with 9K, my client manager was a great auditor, even though his degree and background was in the chemical realm and we had no operations even a bit like a chem lab. Put another way, no approach is perfect and each organization needs to work with their CAB (Conformity Assessment Body, the newer generic term for accredited organizations) to get the best fit for their organization.

Just my thoughts.

Hershal

Thinking back on the auditors I've experienced, the best ones (and I define best as those who actually opened my eyes to a potential problem or opportunity) came from a technical background, but also had a lot of business experience. Ones that pop to mind are a gentleman from SRI who was a former NASA metrologist, our current auditor an independent who contracts with LRQA & others who had a lot of practical paper mill experience, the one A2LA assessor who had retired from the Navy & then ran a fastener lab for a number of years, a gal from LRQA 9not certain if she was contract or not) who helped register my former employer to QS-9000. The best ones almost consult and help you drive your (quality) management system forward. The other ones concentrate on finding something they can document as a nonconformance.

How can you guarantee you'll get one of the good ones? I have suspicions that increased bureaucracy is not a way to insure that you get them, and by the way, in my opinion the good ones are worth a premium fee. The poorer ones, which have included some leads, are expensive at half the price.
I perceive increased bureaucracy as a way to limit access to the field for potential new auditors, and a way of securing increased pay. Its worked for teachers, doctors, why not auditors?

I haven't truly kept track of psychological testing, but the last information I had suggested it was not very accurate in predicting outcomes for things such as employment success - just too many variables to quantify. How is it going to be better applying it via the internet to a candidate to become an auditor?

I can think of some ways to try to weed out ones you wouldn't want, but they involve active management on your part - securing their resume/curicculum vitae up front before selecting either registrar or auditor/assessor, looking for ones with technical background that would be compatible with your industry, and I think a broad background would help as well. Checking with customers or suppliers you respect, and asking for recommendations as registrar/auditors. Possibly attending ASQ meetings local & national and networking. The more opportunities/experience someone has had, hopefully the more they should be able to transfer that to your benefit. (Sounds a bit like I'm recommending an assesor rather than an auditor as per Hershal's comments).

To assure continued auditor competency, providing feedback to the registrar regarding the auditor should become standard. (My current company has tended to skip this route.)

Currently I don't have any more ideas - I'm just old enough (52) and have seen enough companies and society seek to address an issue that is central to an individual or 2 (or company or 2) by adopting bureaucratic rules that end up applying to everyone and making life more expensive and not necessarily better - Sarbanes-Oxley comes to mind.

Hmmmm - Would there be a market for a registrar offering a satisfaction guarantee of some sort?

I called and talked to someone at RABQSA. Before someone can be tested of their skill by an examiner, he has to pass a gap test per the new 17024 standard. It is a on-line test which will be available in 6 weeks. Then the applicant has to arrange for an audit and the examiner will monitor your skill. The audit could be internal audit or external audit. If you fail, there is a time period to do it again for additional fee.

This certification process opens up a way for me to get certified. I have 20 years of QA and auditing experience in QMS and software systems to SEI standard, CQE,CRE and CQA .... I can't get my ISO auditor certification because I don't have a chance to perform external audits which was a requirement.

Tony

IRTCA/IATCA is moving in the same direction of RABQSA certifing audits based on the new competency-based criteria. This may be the trend and direction. Check out this link.

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

Phxsun - Thanks for the update. I appears as though there is no choice but to deal with complexity and increased costs for those interested in becoming registered auditors.

I wonder how this will affect fees charged by auditors/registrars (I suspect upward pressure), and number of companies willing to become registered?

I am currently an RAB Certified ISO 14001 Lead Auditor and will need to acquire competency-based certification by July 2006. My impressions are that the new method will be more expensive in the short-term ($400 for a witnessed audit plus the psychological tesitng fee), but will have some advantages. One advantage is that I won't need to acquire all of the initial audit days (20 days plus 15 as a Lead) to add one or two certifications. I am considering becoming certified in Occupational Health and Safety and Quality as well. What I have beeen complaiing about to the RAB for about 4 years is that it is so expensive to become certified in more than one area. It is unclear to me what the certification renewal process will be like and what it will cost.

Apparently the unaccredited certifications through RAB/QSA and IRCA will be available for a while, but maybe not after January 2006. Does anyone have specifics?

Here's my read...there going to be sucking wind on this. How many present auditors can afford to pay $400 for someone to watch them to see if they're competent? If you're like me you got one of those letters asking us to be RABQSA auditors or whatever to help support this process. Who's supposed to certify the certifier? It's another "chicken or egg" question.

Right now everyone seems to be jumping through their A** over this when the accredition body itself can't even define what competent is. Auditing isn't an exact science that can base its results on empirical evidence. In the end, after it's all said an done, the auditor can do nothing more than make a best guess based upon the objective evidence obtained and weighing it against the prescribed/defined criteria (thats what to assess effectiveness is about). We base our "guess" upon the above in combination with our education, training and experience to help make it come about. I prove time and time again in training courses that people can see the same thing using the same criteria and arrive at different conclusions. Why? Because some of us see the glass half full and some of us see the glass half empty (I call it an "X" factor). Who's to say that the "competence" examiner is a half full/ half empty person and the examinee is just the opposite at any given time. An excellant auditor can be deemed non-competent by another auditor because of the "X" factor related to difference of view. That's $400 that just went down the krapper.

If the accredition bodies ever come up for a breath of fresh air (highly unlikely from my personal viewpoint) they'd realize that a mechanism was already in place that may have needed tweeking a bit to align it with the new requirement.

Another issue that bothers me is this examination of personality stuff. To base my potential on a whiz-bang test dreamt up by who knows what halucinogen is spooky. I'll not lie when I say that I've taken these things in the past honestly and with again with deceit in mind and the results can be changed. This is another type of black magic, smoke-and-mirrors, mumbo-jumbo, fiddle-faddle, dribble.

Wanna know how I test? Anti-social, narrow of view, non-artistic, loner, intelligent, dominant personality, unapproachable and a couple of other things (Hey folks that know me, how close are the results?)

As far as I'm concerned the potential for a professional nightmare scenario is starting to be brewed.

Randy,

Just one minor point.......since the discussion is about the former RAB and its new form.....I ask that you consider narrowing the comment about accrediting bodies to the appropriate ABs.....after all, do you really mean ALL accrediting bodies, including IAS and A2LA, or even NVLAP?

Hershal

Yeah, sure, whatever...wadda you think? Do accrediting bodies have a real grasp on real world needs, or are they scrambling, jumping through hoops without thinking of potentialities....

In this case though I'll restrict myself to the RABQSA in particular to avoid offending the easily bruised and injured. Political correctness, sensitivities and all that you know. ;)

Here's my read...there going to be sucking wind on this. How many present auditors can afford to pay $400 for someone to watch them to see if they're competent? If you're like me you got one of those letters asking us to be RABQSA auditors or whatever to help support this process. Who's supposed to certify the certifier? It's another "chicken or egg" question.


The thing that really burns me up is when RAB sends EMS witness auditors out (QMS auditors "qualified" to EMS) to witness EMS registration audits and they don't have a clue about legal compliance issues.... :mad:

How can someone incompetent on compliance witness an EMS audit and judge the adequacy of the audit process?

You identified a very good salient point my friend. This is not all that uncommon and I'd challenge one of those types in a heartbeat if he/she were to address my shortcomings (of which I have more than a few).

Randy,

You won't offend me.....in fact I will likely join you in pointing out some shortcomings.....just not here, rather I will over a beer.....after all, I do work for an AB.

But in fairness, some do have a grasp on real world issues and are activily trying to solve some issues, such as measurement uncertainty and PT/ILC.

Don't be PC on my account..... :)

Hershal

Not really meant for you pardner, but I figured I'd go ahead and do some damage control prior to an outbreak of snivelling from others...sooner or later I'll be back in So Cal I'm sure.

Has anyone here in the forums applied to be a RABQSA Skill Examiner yet?

I've got the stuff, but I probably won't go through with it because of potential COI issues.

I just got certified as a RABQSA QMS Lead Auditor using the "competency" rout. I started in July 2005. It is not that hard. This is the only way for me to get certified because I conduct internal audits only full time. A lot of people out there probably have little or no chance of getting certified without this option.

For those who don't know yet, a disagreement exists between RABQSA and IRCA on the way forward to demonstrate auditor competence. Mr. Simon Feary, from IRCA, wrote an interesting piece on the last IRCA Inform
http://www.irca.org/inform/issue10/SFeary.html


The bold experiment
IRCA director Simon Feary comments on RABQSA’s suspension of the deadline for its new auditor certification programme

Over on our side of the pond there’s little surprise at RABQSA's decision to suspend the deadline on its new auditor certification programme. The reaction coming from auditors and registrars in North America has been very negative, much more than the usual.
Another indicator has been the numbers of RABQSA auditors requesting a transfer of their auditor certification to the International Register of Certificated Auditors (IRCA) programmes. There’s always been a few each month but over the last six months or so the trickle has increased very significantly. It’s clear they are not happy.
Trying to get the market interested in a radically different approach is always going to be a tough sell, especially so if that new approach also involves a hefty increase in costs. If there’s little in the way of additional perceived value attached to those extra costs then it’s not difficult to predict the outcome.
My understanding of the RABQSA approach was that it had its roots in the premise that incompetent auditors were the primary cause behind business and industry’s loss of confidence in certification. But I’ve never accepted the logic of that argument. And even the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) is beginning at last to accept now that the root cause is less to do with incompetent auditors, and more to do with incompetent audit –yes, there is a difference. Incompetent audit is primarily a consequence of ineffective accreditation, and resolving that is not within the remit of RABQSA, IRCA or any of the other auditor certification bodies.
I’ve no doubt RABQSA’s motives about improving auditor competence were well intended, but suspect all they served to do was irritate the thousands of competent certified auditors who took exception to being told they weren’t in fact competent because they hadn’t acquired their certification through this new, expensive route.
IRCA’s approach to accreditation and ISO/IEC 17024 is different. We are taking care to understand what the users want and then to accommodate that within the accreditation bodies’ interpretation of 17024.
We are taking our time, as we want to get this right. We don’t want the accreditation label if it means offering something that users don’t want, or auditors can’t easily do, or if it involves unacceptable costs. Trying to pull the certification market in a direction that not all parts of the supply infrastructure want to go is high risk. The auditor certification industry on its own won’t solve the audit competence issue. To achieve a real change will require the active participation of the registrars and the accreditation bodies. And promisingly, there are signs that this may happen.
The International Personnel Certification Association (IPC) has set accreditation to 17024 as their membership entry level and I don’t anticipate they will see a need to review this because of what happened to RABQSA’s programme. IPC, and indeed 17024 is intended for a much wider audience than for auditor certification bodies who certify management systems auditors.
The competency based approach will, and in fact is, working readily in some sectors, but not in others. RABQSA’s experience might suggest that management systems certification may be amongst the latter.
Right now, on an international scale, accreditation to 17024 is a mess. There is little consistency in implementation between accreditation bodies, and a practice that one accreditation body might readily allow, another might find completely unacceptable. This makes accreditation to 17024 something of a lottery and, until this is resolved, it remains fairly meaningless other than as a basic indication that the auditor certification body operates a coherent management system.
On the one hand, I have to commend Michael and RABQSA for the boldness of their approach. But on the other, I regret that through their uncompromising rhetoric over auditor competence they have distracted attention from what I see as the real issue behind industries growing lack of interest in accredited certification, which is ineffective accreditation.

Very people realize that the personnel certification bodies such as RABQSA and IRCA are struggling with the implications of ISO 17024. There are cracks in the system, going all the way up to the IAF. IATCA no longer exists, having been replaced by IPC...

At least, Mr Feary from IRCA provides a lot of transparency about the struggle.

http://www.irca.org/inform/issue12/SFeary.html


IPC: stamp of approval?

At an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) held in Athens on 25 August, members of the International Personnel Certification Association (IPC) voted to include approval within their association’s portfolio of activities. IRCA director and IPC Board member Simon Feary took part in the debate and vote and comments here on the initiative and what it aims to achieve.

Although IPC’s move to include approval within its remit may come as a surprise to those out of the personnel certification loop, to many it is an obvious consequence of the frustration members have experienced at the inability of the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) to progress extension of their multi-lateral agreement (MLA) to include ISO 17024. The frustration felt by IRCA and many others within the auditor certification world has been widely publicized. And although IAF has developed and published guidance for the implementation of ISO 17024, this guidance has not prevented the accreditors from varying widely in the way they choose to apply it. This variation is recognized as being damaging not only to the credibility of auditor certification, but also to the reputation of accredited certification as a whole. As one disgruntled member put it: ‘Accredited certification of auditors is now an accepted practice in many parts of the world. But users are aware of the variation and, consequently, are becoming more cynical about the value of accreditation as an add-on to certification. This is hurting all of us.’


History

Most IPC members will recall that IPC was founded on the assumption that consistency would be provided by IAF accreditation, specifically, through an extension to IAF’s current MLA. One of the benefits of this would be to make auditor certification more a part of the accredited certification infrastructure. Given the often peripheral status of auditor certification amongst the accreditors, this had to be seen as a positive. Another benefit was to do away with the need for peer evaluation, a function that proved too difficult for IATCA, IPC’s precursor, in favour of a reliance on accreditation.

The IPC membership activities will remain, with the approval function being performed by a new separate legal entity. This is intended as the basic step in addressing the conflict that would exist if there was no structural separation while allowing IPC to continue as a membership association - a function which IRCA and many others value. The new activity will be phased in two stages. Initially it will be called approval - an interim measure to be operated until IAF extend their MLA to include ISO 17024. But there are few within IPC who express confidence that the IAF will act quickly, or quickly enough, and the expectation is that the approval will develop into accreditation, with full compliance to ISO 17011.


Scope

At this early stage little thought has been given to the scope of IPC’s approval (or accreditation) activities, other than that these will focus on addressing the IAF MLA gap by approving member’s certification programmes. But the scope is likely to be wider than just personnel. IPC could easily expand into accreditation of training approval. Training providers have been the main - some would say only - beneficiaries of the IATCA-style training approval MLA and the planned withdrawal of this structure is causing them, and some training approval bodies, to be concerned. Although it is accepted that IPC’s emphasis is on examination and not training, demand for training continues and members continue to operate training approval. There is a need for some mechanism to regulate the quality of training and it is realistic to expect IPC to consider accreditation of training approval.

There was another key vote approved at the EGM, which was to extend the lifetime of the current MLA and auditor and training certification activities for an additional 12 months. The original plan was that these would cease at the end of September 2006, with the last auditor certifications being withdrawn three years later - in other words, at the end of the certification cycle. Recognizing that there remains a need for a mutual recognition mechanism until the approval function has been set up, the deadlines for cessation of certification and withdrawal of the MLA and auditor and training certification criteria will now be pushed back a year.


Working with IAF

The IPC board has made it clear it remains committed to working within IAF to address the consistency difficulties. IPC plans a strong representation at IAF’s plenary in Cancun later in the year and will continue its involvement on the various relevant working groups. But the expectation based on the progress so far is that the outcome of IAF’s work, if it does proceed, will not be timely and may not be effective, which means that there may be a new accreditation entity on the international scene within the next few years.

There was some debate among members on the extent to which this initiative might alienate IAF. While there was recognition that there were elements within IAF who may see an IPC approval body as a threat, members were reassured by the reported findings of IAF’s own recent survey which indicated that a significant majority of IAF members feel it is valuable to have one accreditation body recognized worldwide.

Done properly, and the IPC board has indicated it has every intention of doing so, an international rather than a national approval body should be regarded as an interesting and positive development. IRCA certainly sees it in that light and welcomes the development.

I think the "struggle" is purely about dough...

"Capital goes where it is made to feel welcome and stays where it is well-treated.” Same for auditors.

Thank goodness for competition. I've heard some very bizarro stories coming from RABQSA Lead Wannabees about psyche tests, 19011 exams (you keep handing it in until you get all the answers correct), and witness audits. How dare they charge $1200/day & travel to witness a new auditor!

Isn't that what clients are paying for when the Lead has a newbie in tow? (And whose witness time gets to count as official audit time.)

We current card-holders should be thankful that the hurdles for entry are being raised....power, and pay, to the peeps!

Here's the perception that I've developed over the last few years....nobody really gives a rip.

It is the opinion of some of the folks that are in my more frequent "circles" that the IRCA ticket carries with it a taste that is more palatable and valid because of the real world approach taken.

Personally, I have been seriously considering changing my present ticket to IRCA and going after IRCA's OHSAS certification as well.

Randy,

Did you ever apply for OHSMS certification? The problem I have with both RABQSA and IRCA is that being witnessed as an OHSMS Lead Auditor for either involves finding a certified OHSMS Lead. The last time I looked there was only one OHSMS IRCA Lead Auditor in the U.S. and no RABQSA certified OHSMS Leads.

Brent Smith

Randy,

Did you ever apply for OHSMS certification? The problem I have with both RABQSA and IRCA is that being witnessed as an OHSMS Lead Auditor for either involves finding a certified OHSMS Lead. The last time I looked there was only one OHSMS IRCA Lead Auditor in the U.S. and no RABQSA certified OHSMS Leads.

Brent Smith

You have identified the real issue here in the states and that's the lack of Lead's necessary to do the witness audits...they ain't here and nobody can afford to fly them in from Australia or England. What really ticks me is the RABQSA's idiot, non-thinking, head-up-the-A handling of this situation when it comes to becoming an OHS Lead. When the old RAB EMS Lead level was 1st put out there was a grandfather or grace time when witness audits were not required (I fell within this period thank goodness), it isn't the case this time.

At the present rate, or at least how I understand it, there aren't going to be any USA based RABQSA OHS Leads due to the total lack of availability for someone to do the witness audit.

Now, I am a Lead Auditor for OHS for my employer under our qualification scheme as are many others for my organization and for other organizations in the 3rd party world, but do you have any idea how disheartening it is when I have to tell my students who study and work hard during 18001 Lead Auditor courses that there is an almost zero chance for them to ever become a Registered or Certified Lead Auditor? The looks and stares I get really hit home and I hate to tell them that, but I have to be honest, they are my clients and customers and deserving of the truth as I see it.

Right now I qualify for whatever the highest level is for an OHS Auditor that doesn't require "witness audits" and I'm holding off until there is some resolution.

Recently the RABQSA has developed some type of scheme for registration or CB auditors but I haven't seen it and it doesn't do other professionals one bit of good.

Am I miffed? You betcha! At times it just seems to me that the decision makers and grand planners don't know any more about this stuff than a tree does about fornication.

Sounds like the intro to a TS LA session....

"Thanks for coming, paying the $2500, and taking a week off....two out of three will fail. Oh, and we think 50% of those in the field are incompetent also."
(I can't figure out how they took their dough with a straight face!)

The Madfox