Ok, Who can tell me what the highly touted RAB/QSA Competency based certification has in common with New Coke?
Read Below:

Bob
RABQSA Suspends 17024 Transition Deadline
Today, RABQSA announced the suspension of the Certification Transition Plan requiring auditors to transition to the competency-based certification schemes for QMS, EMS, Food Safety and OH&S.
http://www.rabqsa.com/news.shtml

I wonder where from here... What's the new plan....?

1st they need to be able to quantify competence before they can determine if it is achieved.

I wonder where from here... What's the new plan....?No new plan, I guess. They will keep certifying people using the "traditional" qualification scheme. Looks like the COSTS associated with the competence-based scheme were prohibitive for most people. My question is: is the cat out of the bag? Now that many people realize that you do not need a RABQSA/IRCA certificate to work for many registrars will the auditors renew their certs? It is $300/year in your pocket instead of RABQSA's pocket. What does the cert give you in return?

There you go Sidney:agree1:

I also have a suspicion that the "competency wizards" were going to have a tough time being allowed to follow an auditor around on an assessment by either some registrars or by some clients. Most likely the clients. This is a guess of course.

One other point not yet brought up.....

Can RAB successfully an accreditation assessment? And which group will perform the assessment? The only ones in the U.S. doing ISO/IEC 17024 assessments is ANSI.

Hershal

No new plan, I guess. They will keep certifying people using the "traditional" qualification scheme. Looks like the COSTS associated with the competence-based scheme were prohibitive for most people. My question is: is the cat out of the bag? Now that many people realize that you do not need a RABQSA/IRCA certificate to work for many registrars will the auditors renew their certs? It is $300/year in your pocket instead of RABQSA's pocket. What does the cert give you in return?

Although many registrars don't require RABQSA/IRCA certification (in fact their in-house qualification systems for lead auditors may be much tougher), others do require certification to initially be hired and may solicit those who are listed on RABQSA's website (at least that is my own experience). Because I am a RABQSA lead auditor, I have been solicited over the years by multiple registrars, including at least one outside of the U.S, and multiple consulting firms. The certification has also been helpful in initially acquiring work as a trainer and part-time college faculty member.

The competence-based scheme is more expensive, but made auditor certification attainable for internal auditors and others who couldn't easily qualify because of audit days, particularly audit days as a lead auditor being witnessed by a RABQSA certified lead auditor. For those of us already certified, of course, cheaper is better (until we have to transition to the new system).

I'm sure it's a combination realted to everything we've mentioned. A lingering question is why isn't IRCA getting all wrapped around the axel with this "competence" gibberish? (Or at least it doesn't seem to be)

A lingering question is why isn't IRCA getting all wrapped around the axel with this "competence" gibberish? (Or at least it doesn't seem to be)According to IRCA, they have experienced a significant increase in number of applications for people that were not happy with RABQSA's position and transferred their auditor certification to IRCA.

At the IRCA website, they state:
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.