Debated on which forum to put this into, but considering the rejection of the manual occurred during the ISO 14001 audit, into this forum my question goes....

Background info : Many of you know that I'm a strong advocate for an integrated Business Management System...none of this quality / environmental management system stuff. One company, one system...end of story.

As part of our quest to further integrate, we developed a BMS manual which addresses (we thought) all requirements of:

ISO 9001
ISO 14001
ISRS 6th edition
OHSAS 18001
Current company methodologies and tools


My idea was two-fold:

Identify the overlapping/common requirements amongst the standards (yes, I know they're not all standards, but for simplicity's sake, let's just call them that)
Place the requirements (be they common or unique) into the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle (i.e., find a home for them...either P or D or C or A).


From there, we had "assistance" to develop the manual and after much red-penning and pain-killers :o on my part, a 50 page document was developed that just oozed what my company is all about. A work of art!

In November, we had our ISO 9001 Registrar become our ISO 14001 Registrar as well and our manual was deemed a "Best in Class" in the auditor's estimation during our ISO 14001 audit.

A few days ago, the email came in from our auditor. Our Registrar has rejected our manual citing that there is no responsibility matrix. :mg: :mad: :confused: :eek:

So...

Step 1 - DONE : Contact our "assistance" to find out if they've ever had a manual rejected before (because I certainly have never had that happen to me).

Step 2 - ONGOING : Where is the "shall" for this responsibility matrix? Our manual cites responsibilties of processes and requirements at a high level and then provides links to lower level documents where responsibilities are clearly defined and laid-out.

Perhaps someone could assist me on this responsibility matrix and provide some clarification as to what the Registrar is looking for? We re-submitted a matrix that showed processes and responsibilties that we provided to the auditor prior to the audit...but this matrix is not part of our manual. We thought it was tool to assist the auditor. :frust:

Where is the "shall" for this responsibility matrix?

That was my first thought too.

Funny thing, last week during our AS9100 recert audit, one of the auditors spoke of creating a "matrix" by including/listing responsibilities on a process flow chart we have in our QM. He brought it up as kind of an "undocumented OFI".

Responsibility "matrix" must be something they are currently stressing at auditor school.

:lmao: :lmao: :lol: :lol: “no responsibility matrix” in a Business Management protocol ? Does anyone else find that amusing. :biglaugh:

…Sadly, that’s sSOooooo typical!

But seriously, let me get this straight.
You think you can do better, what rooms full of people, in three separate institutions, have been exclusively dedicated to for years?

I’ll erect a monument in your honor.

Sorry, I can't help.

Was there any discussion as to how the auditor can accept the manaual but their employer (the registrar) did not? And why it took a month from the audit to provide the feedback? Seems to me a bigger issue is with the registrar, their auditor, and the registrar's timeliness.

4.4.1 of ISO 14001 states that roles responsibilites, and authorities shall be defined, documented, and communicated. It does not say how or in what document. I see no requirement that a manual must have a responsibility matrix. If, as you stated, your lower level documents clearly define responsibilities, then there is no problem for you. The problem is for your auditor and registrar to prove there is a shall and to explain why it is okay for the auditor to accept the manual but the registrar to deny it.

Regards,

Dirk

:lmao: :lmao: :lol: :lol: “no responsibility matrix” in a Business Management protocol ? Does anyone else find that amusing. :biglaugh:

…Sadly, that’s sSOooooo typical!

But seriously, let me get this straight.
You think you can do better, what rooms full of people, in three separate institutions, have been exclusively dedicated to for years?

I’ll erect a monument in your honor.

Sorry, I can't help.

bmccabe, those are pretty BOLD statements. :mg:

What is so terribly wrong with writing a manual that makes sense, covers all of the pertinent guidelines (after all these "magical documents" like ISO 14001 are just GUIDELINES, not hard rules that require everyone look like a bunch of xerox copies), and relates all the regulatory gibberish back to a basic and rock-solid concept such PDCA? :agree1:

These "gentlemen" (and ladies) in their learned ivory tower positions are often out of touch with the reality of business operations. I do believe we can all "do better" - much better. Take from those folks the bits of knowledge they are willing to SELL, and add your own WISDOM and EXPERIENCE. What you will have when you finish will both work and be better for your company (circumstances and resources).


Exclusive dedication often breeds a lack of connection with reality. Carefull what lead you follow, the horse in front of you may be walking off of a cliff.

As far as the "matrix" goes, I don't believe there is a requirement for such an animal. If your documentation is implementable and defines responsibilty appropriately I would think it should meet the guidelines you are being audited to.

Brian

A few days ago, the email came in from our auditor. Our Registrar has rejected our manual citing that there is no responsibility matrix.Huh? The registrar slapped the auditors wrist with a nonexistent requirement? :tunnel: How quaint... :read:

We re-submitted a matrix that showed processes and responsibilties that we provided to the auditor prior to the audit...but this matrix is not part of our manual. We thought it was tool to assist the auditor. We have no such matrix at all. Our auditors asks us how we fulfil a certain requirement and we show them. Simple as that. A matrix is of no use to the users of our BMS, which incidentally has been put together for their benefit, not the auditors.

Go get them Roxy...

/Claes

I think they make this stuff up as they go along. I'm familiar, only, with ISO 9001 and not the others on your list, but I'd think the other standards would not restrict you to a defined form for establishing conformance to the requirements. So, how do they come up with this crap? They're desk jockeys without any sense. They should cite the specific requirement including the words.

I think they make this stuff up as they go along. Shishhh. Next you are going to reveal the 3rd Secret of Fatima or Coca Cola's recipe.....be careful.....:biglaugh:

My only statement(s) were that the topic of business management is out of my depth. :truce:

...And out of the depth of it's practitioners. :notangel:

On the side, not quite off topic. I started a thread on quality and manufacturing:
Should manufacturing efficiency be a quality function? Yes or No? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=13840)
The consensus there was that quality's function is to provide analysis. Now we're telling the boss how to work?:mybad: How did you respond to the pole in my thread?

Shishhh. Next you are going to reveal the 3rd Secret of Fatima or Coca Cola's recipe.....be careful.....:biglaugh:Sidney, look at MDD Requirement - SOP for on how to translate from one language to another (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=131194#post131194), too.

Funny thing, last week during our AS9100 recert audit, one of the auditors spoke of creating a "matrix" by including/listing responsibilities on a process flow chart we have in our QM. He brought it up as kind of an "undocumented OFI".

Responsibility "matrix" must be something they are currently stressing at auditor school.

Yeah, I was thinking something very similar. I think they want the matrix so that they don't need to actually read the manual. :rolleyes:

Was there any discussion as to how the auditor can accept the manaual but their employer (the registrar) did not? And why it took a month from the audit to provide the feedback? Seems to me a bigger issue is with the registrar, their auditor, and the registrar's timeliness.

4.4.1 of ISO 14001 states that roles responsibilites, and authorities shall be defined, documented, and communicated. It does not say how or in what document. I see no requirement that a manual must have a responsibility matrix. If, as you stated, your lower level documents clearly define responsibilities, then there is no problem for you. The problem is for your auditor and registrar to prove there is a shall and to explain why it is okay for the auditor to accept the manual but the registrar to deny it.

Ah, Dirk, you're asking exactly what I asked our EMS Rep when he informed me of the rejection. The timeliness has ceased to be a concern of mine, though, as this does appear to be their standard pace. My eyebrow is raised over how a competent auditor can accept it but the registrar does not. And as the auditor is our auditor for ISO 9001, I'm worried what this means towards that registration.

Brian, :thanks: you for your kind words. You've aptly described my own professional development. I once thought the world revolved around Quality Management Systems....but after being exposed to EMS and H&S and most recently Financial, I see so many overlaps that it just makes good business sense to streamline our processes and reduce redundancies. I have no issue with separate standards/guidelines, but I see no logical reason for my company to keep them separate. :D

Go get them Roxy...

:argue: :censor: :whip: I'm all set to go....release the hounds!

Al and Sidney....:thanx: for making me laugh! Granted, Al, "crap" wasn't exactly the word I used. :o

bmccabe, please explain what you mean by your statement that it's out of the depth for practictioners? I will admit that I had exit the Cove to cool off after reading your first post. I hardly expect a monument to be erected in my honour...the occasional sacrificial ritual, however, will be appreciated. :cool:

If you do not understand the concept of a Business Management System and the integration of requirements and processes, you could have simply asked for clarification. Your first post would have been much more appreciated and positive.

An integrated BMS hardly "tells" the boss what to do. Any Management System be it Quality, Environment, H&S, Financial, or Business should merely state what is already done. It's what the company already is doing. The only thing it "tells" the reader is where to find more information like specifics and details on tasks and responsibilities. Consider the manual like a library index system...it won't tell you all about Ancient Babylon, for example, but it will point you in the right direction to get more information.

And integrating all of these requirements allows us to identify the commonalties and make better use of our resources...efficiency and effectivess....improvement. :D After all, my company doesn't want to merely be a survivor...we want to be an industry leader.

Responsibility matrix? I'll cry double :horse: on this one.

I do 9, 14, 18, know about ISRS and I might as well toss in AS9100 as well as ANSI Z-10 and not one of them has a "shall" related to a matrix.

You guys do use Sid's company don't you?:lol: Please don't say it was one of my co-worker's:mg: who came up with this bogus pile of dookey.

This is a new one, maybe I'm teaching the wrong stuff:confused: Whadya think Sid?

This is a new one, maybe I'm teaching the wrong stuff:confused: Whadya think Sid?I think you are still seeing red from a previous thread and that is impairing your good judgement even more. Like several previous times, you are doing one thing that auditors should not do: ASSUMING. And like Wes said very appropriately in a thread many moons ago, just because you do something many times, over a long time, it does not mean that you are doing it right...Be careful, you might be surprised when you jump to conclusions.

Al, "crap" wasn't exactly the word I used.It wasn't what I thought, but it beat just seeing ****s.

I think you are still seeing red from a previous thread and that is impairing your good judgement even more. Like several previous times, you are doing one thing that auditors should not do: ASSUMING. And like Wes said very appropriately in a thread many moons ago, just because you do something many times, over a long time, it does not mean that you are doing it right...Be careful, you might be surprised when you jump to conclusions.


I was refering to the "matrix". I don't recall ever seeing it being "required". Am I in error?

As for the previous thread....water under the bridge...

I was refering to the "matrix". I don't recall ever seeing it being "required". Am I in error?

As for the previous thread....water under the bridge...No, you are correct. There is no such matrix required anywhere.

I have long since given up trying to divine the future from omens such as

one reviewer accepting a system and a second rejecting it WITHOUT citing a "shall"
Sidney and Randy agreeing on a course of action
entrails of sacrificed auditors(Wait a minute - I DO want to examine the entrails of a sacrificed 3rd party auditor - especially draped along 30 feet of barbed wire with crows picking at them.)

Bottom line:
Sounds to me like a tailor-made opportunity for discussion at a summit conference with top registrar brass and you and your "suits." I consider myself "fairly knowledgeable" and I can't even imagine the registrar being able to justify this position, based on the facts you posit in this thread. Once the registrar backs down (as I believe it must), ask for a SUBSTANTIAL discount on the fee to make up for the aggravation they have caused you. (Spend the discount on a party for your team! Include cocktails made with CACHAÇA!)

Hi All,

Yes it is me (lol) :)

I was once asked for a 'Responibility Matrix' but I think it was back in the 1987 variant. This guy/gal better get with the times!!! I agree with Claes, if they want to see something.. we show it to them it is not always written down nowadays.

:topic: Better get back to the grindstone as my Logistics duties have me loading another ship tomorrow...be gone for another week or so (it looks like it will be over Christmas)

Hi

1. It is possible that the Registrar had been audited (surveillance) by the Accreditation Agency that might have brought this point. It is possible that the Accreditation Agency had raised a non-conformance on the registrar on this count (i.e. inadequacy of the manual that had not been brought out by the auditor of the registrar during the Stage I audit of your organization) and their rejection of your manual may be the "corrective" action taken by the registrar. If this is the case, it is better to work with the registrar and sort this out.
2. Kindly check if "environmental" responsibilities (e.g. dealing with EPA) and authorities (e.g. taking decision on specific environmental issues) have been included in your second level document on responsibilities and authorities and a reference is made to this document in your first level document (manual). If this is the case, you have a strong case for appeal against the registrar's decision to the Registrar's "Apellate Body", if they have one.
3. If the link between the document showing the "environmental" responsibilities and authorities and the manual is not explicit, it is better to make that explicit in the manual. Please also ensure that this document (or elements of it, as appropriate) is communicated to all those identified as "responsible" and "authorized". Once this is done, the registrar should be able to respond to your corrective action positively.

I do not know if the above is useful; I could imagine a few situations that could result in the "result" like what you had stated and I thought I should share with you.

All the best.

With kind regards,

Ramakrishnan

Yeah, I was thinking something very similar. I think they want the matrix so that they don't need to actually read the manual. :rolleyes: Agreed. There are registrars out there who don't trust their auditors and have a full review of each auditor report. The reviewers sit in a darkened room in headquarters and "invent" requirements that extend beyond the standard.


Ah, Dirk, you're asking exactly what I asked our EMS Rep when he informed me of the rejection. The timeliness has ceased to be a concern of mine, though, as this does appear to be their standard pace. My eyebrow is raised over how a competent auditor can accept it but the registrar does not. And as the auditor is our auditor for ISO 9001, I'm worried what this means towards that registration. Again an indicator of who this registrar is. There are some report review processes that go out beyond the visit cycle! So, as an auditor or a client, you can be asked questions by the reviewer about the visit before last! The crux of the matter is the "additional requirements that the auditor on the ground is unaware of but that come up in the review. I have some customers who are still waiting for certificates 12 months after a positive recommendation!

I am now dealing with an auditor from the same registrar (if my guess is correct) who has come in to a company I have helped with their EMS systems and he has created a raft of new requirements for their aspects, legislation and audit and has "encouraged" them to change their system so it is more readable to him. I am now between a rock and a hard place - I either tackle him head on, knowing how stubborn the reviewers are and expose their processes, and end up devaluing assessment and certification - or I go along with his "requirements" and add bureaucracy to their system with no added value.

Seems like an ideal target for a "Name and Shame" - anyone thought about doing that?:D

An integrated BMS hardly "tells" the boss what to do. Any Management System be it Quality, Environment, H&S, Financial, or Business should merely state what is already done. It's what the company already is doing. The only thing it "tells" the reader is where to find more information like specifics and details on tasks and responsibilities. Consider the manual like a library index system...it won't tell you all about Ancient Babylon, for example, but it will point you in the right direction to get more information.

And integrating all of these requirements allows us to identify the commonalties and make better use of our resources...efficiency and effectivess....improvement. :D After all, my company doesn't want to merely be a survivor...we want to be an industry leader.:applause:
Agreed totally. We should end up being a mixture of technical author and systems analyst. The system as it is documented should be a reflection of what the organization does, not what each standard requires. The clever bit on our part is ensuring that the elements of each standard are addressed and being able to point this out to anyone who we wish to show the system to. Third party auditor, customer, .....Now there is a good use for a matrix. :lol:

I have some customers who are still waiting for certificates 12 months after a positive recommendation!For once (Yes, it happens), I'm lost for words... :nope: . All I can say is that if the certificates are still amiss after 12 months, I do hope that the fee is equally late.

/Claes

You guys do use Sid's company don't you?:lol: Please don't say it was one of my co-worker's:mg: who came up with this bogus pile of dookey.

*insert "Mighty Mouse" theme song music*

No, we do not use Sid's company for ISO 9001 or ISO 14001. We do use his organization for ISRS and have no complaints from their recent visit. :)

Sounds to me like a tailor-made opportunity for discussion at a summit conference with top registrar brass and you and your "suits." I consider myself "fairly knowledgeable" and I can't even imagine the registrar being able to justify this position, based on the facts you posit in this thread. Once the registrar backs down (as I believe it must), ask for a SUBSTANTIAL discount on the fee to make up for the aggravation they have caused you. (Spend the discount on a party for your team! Include cocktails made with CACHAÇA!)

Summit conference?!?!?! We're too busy making steel to actually meet with our Registrar. :D

What is probably the most irksome is the fact that I'm not really involved in this fiasco...our EMS Rep is communicating with the auditor and registrar (and rightfully so, I suppose), but rather than ask them to cite the "shall", he re-sends a matrix of theirs that he completed prior to the audit. I just don't him to set a precident for our combined audit in June 2006. :(

Hi All,

Yes it is me (lol) :)

I was once asked for a 'Responibility Matrix' but I think it was back in the 1987 variant. This guy/gal better get with the times!!! I agree with Claes, if they want to see something.. we show it to them it is not always written down nowadays.

:topic: Better get back to the grindstone as my Logistics duties have me loading another ship tomorrow...be gone for another week or so (it looks like it will be over Christmas)

Yay! You're alive! :bighug:

If the auditor had asked (i.e., indicated that the manual was lacking a required matrix), we would have developed one licketysplit. No questions asked.

But the fact she okay'd it...but the Registrar hasn't...well, that's causing me to do my Spock impersonation and raise an eyebrow.

This whole thing happened a few days ago. Spoke with the EMS Rep this morning for an update since the manual rejection does impact the ISO 9001 side of things, as well, and said he would email the auditor later today. :frust: If he was asking her about a recent trip, I could understand later today.....but darn it, on this?!?!....how about emailing her now???

You know...sometimes, I just don't get people...

What is probably the most irksome is the fact that I'm not really involved in this fiasco...our EMS Rep is communicating with the auditor and registrar (and rightfully so, I suppose), but rather than ask them to cite the "shall", he re-sends a matrix of theirs that he completed prior to the audit. I just don't him to set a precident for our combined audit in June 2006. :(You are absolutely right to be concerned about the precedent. Any auditor who raises dodgy non compliances - like this one - tends to take a client "rolling over" as a licence to continue imposing their will on your system. A recipe for a long and fruitful partnership .... I think not. :bonk:

This whole thing happened a few days ago. Spoke with the EMS Rep this morning for an update since the manual rejection does impact the ISO 9001 side of things, as well, and said he would email the auditor later today. :frust: If he was asking her about a recent trip, I could understand later today.....but darn it, on this?!?!....how about emailing her now???

You know...sometimes, I just don't get people...Apparently, he is not as concerned about this as you are.

*insert "Mighty Mouse" theme song music*

No, we do not use Sid's company for ISO 9001 or ISO 14001. We do use his organization for ISRS and have no complaints from their recent visit. :)Thank you for the clarification, Roxane. Another case of Randy-gone-wild I guess.

You are absolutely right to be concerned about the precedent. Any auditor who raises dodgy non compliances - like this one - tends to take a client "rolling over" as a licence to continue imposing their will on your system. A recipe for a long and fruitful partnership .... I think not. :bonk:

Well, it will be fruitful for the registrar:) . The genesis of this sort of problem lies in the fact that the suits will often react to issues raised during audits by telling their manangement reps to just take care of it--take the path of least resistance and make it go away, and don't make waves. Thus if an auditor (or registrar) reports that everything is OK except for the fact that the company's employees aren't wearing pink tutus, you can bet that the tutus will be on order before the auditor leaves the building after the closing meeting.

Paul is right--precedent is a dangerous thing, and the best thing you can do right now is to simply inform the registrar that you're shopping for a new one--one that understands the standard.

...the best thing you can do right now is to simply inform the registrar that you're shopping for a new one--one that understands the standard.
I agree. LOL - My Grandpa used to say "Sometimes you gotta show 'em your *ss!".:D

Thank you for the clarification, Roxane. Another case of Randy-gone-wild I guess.
I think Randy, like all of us in the forum representing registrars are praying this guy doesn't work for us! Sidney is in the clear, care of Roxane, I am confident it is not us.

Do you think we could do a 20 questions and end up with a name? :lol:

I am pretty sure I recognize the trademark bureaucracy gone made. I think I worked for them as a sub contract auditor!

1. It is possible that the Registrar had been audited (surveillance) by the Accreditation Agency that might have brought this point. It is possible that the Accreditation Agency had raised a non-conformance on the registrar on this count (i.e. inadequacy of the manual that had not been brought out by the auditor of the registrar during the Stage I audit of your organization) and their rejection of your manual may be the "corrective" action taken by the registrar. If this is the case, it is better to work with the registrar and sort this out.

If our Registrar has some issues with their accrediation bodies (ANSI-RAB and RvA), then I have a major concern. :mg: If the manual is inadequate, fine, but the requirements that are not met should have been cited. I have yet to find a requirement stating that a responsibility matrix is required. If they're going to reject the manual, we need to be given a better "reason". :)

2. Kindly check if "environmental" responsibilities (e.g. dealing with EPA) and authorities (e.g. taking decision on specific environmental issues) have been included in your second level document on responsibilities and authorities and a reference is made to this document in your first level document (manual). If this is the case, you have a strong case for appeal against the registrar's decision to the Registrar's "Apellate Body", if they have one.

Responsibilities for external communications is addressed in both the manual and lower level documentation (including links). If their concern is we had inadequately outlined/elaborated on these responsibilities, that should have been the reason for rejection. But I do see your point. :)

3. If the link between the document showing the "environmental" responsibilities and authorities and the manual is not explicit, it is better to make that explicit in the manual. Please also ensure that this document (or elements of it, as appropriate) is communicated to all those identified as "responsible" and "authorized". Once this is done, the registrar should be able to respond to your corrective action positively.

It can not more direct than the electronic link. If they wanted to see the linked document, again, that should have been communicated to us instead of "manual rejected" notice with no explanation other than some mystery requirement of a responsibility matrix.

People are trained on and made aware of their responsibilities. Evidence of this training (and its effectiveness) is maintained.

I do not know if the above is useful; I could imagine a few situations that could result in the "result" like what you had stated and I thought I should share with you.

Thank you for the possible reasons to explain our rejected manual. #2 would be the one that I could potentially see as their concern, but we have, in my opinion, sufficiently detailed responsibilties (and communicated them). I'm thinking they need to reword their reason for rejecting the manual...especially if they have a valid reason for doing so...in other words, they need to cite the "shall".

Roxane, work at resolving the issue and move on. I don't think there is anything to be gained by revealing the name of the registrar at this time since the issue has not been discussed with them. You don't know who is viewing this thread.

You are absolutely right to be concerned about the precedent. Any auditor who raises dodgy non compliances - like this one - tends to take a client "rolling over" as a licence to continue imposing their will on your system. A recipe for a long and fruitful partnership .... I think not. :bonk:

On the ISO 9001 side of things, we have been with this Registrar since early 1998. We had a very tough (and potentially unfair) auditor, but he pushed us and helped to develop a solid system. Unfortunately, I only experienced one audit with him and then it was time to rotate auditors.

Since then, we've had fair auditors whose experiences range from being solid in the labs to solid in production to solid in documentation.

Our former ISO 14001 registrar was IMHO "fluff" and even their auditors commented that my internal audits were tougher than what they did. So, when it came time to renew the contract...we didn't. And with the intent to streamline our processes, we talked with our ISO 9001 registrar and arranged to start having combined external audits in 2006...especially as our current auditor from them is a Lead for both standards.

I think Randy, like all of us in the forum representing registrars are praying this guy doesn't work for us! Sidney is in the clear, care of Roxane, I am confident it is not us.

Do you think we could do a 20 questions and end up with a name?

I am pretty sure I recognize the trademark bureaucracy gone made. I think I worked for them as a sub contract auditor!

I don't know, Paul, if it's possible to peg the bureaucracy to one particular registrar...I thought the bulk of them had similar red tape. :D But feel free to PM your guess to me.

Roxane, work at resolving the issue and move on. I don't think there is anything to be gained by revealing the name of the registrar at this time since the issue has not been discussed with them. You don't know who is viewing this thread.

:yes: True. I do not feel comfortable posting the registrar's name...especially as this could be something as simple as a misunderstanding. Heck, maybe they confused our manual review with someone else's...like doctor's sometimes do with people's test results. :)

Roxane, work at resolving the issue and move on. I don't think there is anything to be gained by revealing the name of the registrar at this time since the issue has not been discussed with them. You don't know who is viewing this thread.
Al, I'll take that as a slap on the wrist. I was having a little bit of fun, at some registrar's expense. I appreciate the "Name and Shame" idea isn't welcome here and the idea was tongue in cheek.

There is a serious point here, though. As has been noted elsewhere in the cove, a lot of the senior managers at registrars would be horrifeid to know what some of their employees are inflicting on their (the registrar's) customers. I, for one, would want to know, even if it meant a little bit of bad publicity in the short term.

There are too many examples of rotten apples out there. If the cove isn't the place to do something about it then maybe we need to find a place.

Al, I'll take that as a slap on the wrist. It wasn't meant as a slap on the wrist.
I was having a little bit of fun, at some registrar's expense. I appreciate the "Name and Shame" idea isn't welcome here and the idea was tongue in cheek.I know that.

There is a serious point here, though. As has been noted elsewhere in the cove, a lot of the senior managers at registrars would be horrifeid to know what some of their employees are inflicting on their (the registrar's) customers. I, for one, would want to know, even if it meant a little bit of bad publicity in the short term.I doubt that's true.

There are too many examples of rotten apples out there. If the cove isn't the place to do something about it then maybe we need to find a place.It's called the Acreditation Body.

I think Randy, like all of us in the forum representing registrars are praying this guy doesn't work for us! Sidney is in the clear, care of Roxane, I am confident it is not us.

Do you think we could do a 20 questions and end up with a name? :lol:

I am pretty sure I recognize the trademark bureaucracy gone made. I think I worked for them as a sub contract auditor!
I am pretty sure I recognize the trademark bureaucracy gone made. I think I worked for them as a sub contract auditor!

I'm not going to get involved in naming and shaming either. (Does their name rhyme with Blue Bell?)

First things, after an exchange of PMs with Roxanne I have to hold my hand up and say I was wrong - there are at least two registrars out there with systems that stink .... but seriously.

I knew it was too good to last. The recent exchange of posts has all been going along so sweetly and now I can feel my hackles rising.

It wasn't meant as a slap on the wrist.
Not that one, an easy mistake to make, general banter, easy to write a post that can be read as more firm than it is, applies both ways.

I know that.Same applies. I sometimes over tell people when I am joking, Al replied a little bluntly but I can live with it.

I doubt that's true. Now the hackles are up. If I say I would like to know when an employee or a sub contractor is bringing my company into disrepute then to doubt it questions my integrity and over the years I have been known to react to that. So let me state it again, unequivocally.

If there are any issues with non compliances or any other part of the audit / certification process that is contentious:

I WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT!

I would prefer it if customers contact me direct but if they want to post it on the cove then I accept that as a penalty for being a registrar and in the public domain.

It's called the Acreditation Body.Again a trifle blunt. There are plenty of other threads on the cove when posters are saying they don't want to go down this channel.

So let me ask the question again. If the customer doesn't feel they can use the "proper" channels then should there be a forum where they can have their grievances aired? If members don't think so, that is fine with me.

So let me ask the question again. If the customer doesn't feel they can use the "proper" channels then should there be a forum where they can have their grievances aired? If members don't think so, that is fine with me.

A good question, but undoubtedly :topic: in this thread, and the discourse is sliding a bit towards the dark side. I'm not sure that I disagree with your basic premise, but maybe it would be best to start a new thread on the subject.

Are you sure that this may not just be a misunderstanding? I have often been asked to fill out a responsibility matrix for the AUDIT, not the manual. This is to let the auditors know who the contact is for each area and track who is interviewed. It could be that the registrar, when reviewing the auditors report, found one of THEIR pieces of paper was missing and rejected the audit report and not your manual.

Thank you for the clarification, Roxane. Another case of Randy-gone-wild I guess.

Not necessarily. In Randy's defence, I believe I've asked questions about ISRS before and in this post I've indicated a common registrar...understandable that a particular conclusion would be reached. I should have been more clear in separating our ISRS registrar from our ISO's registrar.

Are you sure that this may not just be a misunderstanding? I have often been asked to fill out a responsibility matrix for the AUDIT, not the manual. This is to let the auditors know who the contact is for each area and track who is interviewed. It could be that the registrar, when reviewing the auditors report, found one of THEIR pieces of paper was missing and rejected the audit report and not your manual.

Dunno...I've mention in other posts in this thread that we resubmitted a matrix outlining processes and "champions" to the registrar. Basically, we re-sent a piece of paper that they had us fill in prior to the audit.

A good question, but undoubtedly :topic: in this thread, and the discourse is sliding a bit towards the dark side. I'm not sure that I disagree with your basic premise, but maybe it would be best to start a new thread on the subject.
I agree about the way the thread is going towards confrontation. I said it myself.

In the word of the lawyers: For the avoidance of doubt I am quite happy for criticism of
My statements
My interpretation of the standard
My opinions of what is a good management system and what is not
The manner of my posting
My sense of humour
My dress sense and good looks (although this would obviously be difficult) ;)

I am not happy about any criticism of my integrity and will inevitably respond. So if we want to keep the discussions to the topic then let us all take some statements as read - unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Regarding the :topic: I merely mentioned it again.

As has been stated in other threads (and this one earlier) I understand the name and shame is not wanted. However this and many other threads are directly related to customer perception of the value of assessment and certification and hence the need for a forum to discuss registrar non compliances directly (with them having a right to reply) keeps coming up - in my mind at least.:truce:

Are you sure that this may not just be a misunderstanding? I have often been asked to fill out a responsibility matrix for the AUDIT, not the manual. This is to let the auditors know who the contact is for each area and track who is interviewed. It could be that the registrar, when reviewing the auditors report, found one of THEIR pieces of paper was missing and rejected the audit report and not your manual.I hadn't meant to re-enter this thread, but this is an IMPORTANT clue to why we need to have free and open communication with all parties (by sharing summaries of private communications with all the players.) Roxane is obviously shut out of the loop in this situation and is caught between dual bureaucracies (the registrar and her own organization) which wants communication to go through one person and apparently Roxane is shut out of even commenting on the decision process as to the proper way to deal with this situation.

I think Roxane's organization has to take some lessons in how to plumb the "Profound Knowledge" within the organization to respond to outside "threats" to its wellbeing.

First things, after an exchange of PMs with Roxanne I have to hold my hand up and say I was wrong - there are at least two registrars out there with systems that stink .... but seriously.

I knew it was too good to last. The recent exchange of posts has all been going along so sweetly and now I can feel my hackles rising.


Not that one, an easy mistake to make, general banter, easy to write a post that can be read as more firm than it is, applies both ways.

Same applies. I sometimes over tell people when I am joking, Al replied a little bluntly but I can live with it.

Now the hackles are up. If I say I would like to know when an employee or a sub contractor is bringing my company into disrepute then to doubt it questions my integrity and over the years I have been known to react to that. So let me state it again, unequivocally.

If there are any issues with non compliances or any other part of the audit / certification process that is contentious:

I WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT!

I would prefer it if customers contact me direct but if they want to post it on the cove then I accept that as a penalty for being a registrar and in the public domain.

Again a trifle blunt. There are plenty of other threads on the cove when posters are saying they don't want to go down this channel.

So let me ask the question again. If the customer doesn't feel they can use the "proper" channels then should there be a forum where they can have their grievances aired? If members don't think so, that is fine with me.
You may want to have a dispute aired in public, but I doubt a registrar would. I did not mean to question your integrity and I appoligize, for not being clear.
I would only go the Accreditation Body route if the registrar was unresponsive. At this point it appears that this has not been discussed with the registrar.
Maybe there should be a place to air grievances, but I wouldn't recommend it while you still have a business relationship with either a supplier or a customer. There are many reasons why, one of which is it's just not professional. I don't think I'm wrong in this respect. You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine.

You may want to have a dispute aired in public, but I doubt a registrar would. Thanks for your reply. Again, just to make myself clear, I am representing a registrar. My consulting company has a contract to deliver the management systems certification services of a UKAS accredited UK based registrar - Sira Certification Services. Having worked for one registrar on a permanent basis and a number as a contract auditor I know there is good and bad out there. We go through a process of review of reports and I try to look at each from a customer point of view -
Do I agree a non compliance exists?
Would I easily understand what the problem is
Is the non compliance about opinion or fact

If I cannot get a satisfactory answer to these points I go back to the auditor. But there are still things stated during an audit that I cannot review and could result in the customer doing a whole bunch of additional work for no benefit - that is a danger that exists.
I would only go the Accreditation Body route if the registrar was unresponsive. At this point it appears that this has not been discussed with the registrar. Not sure if that is the case here. The auditor said ok and the registrar (headquarters) has challenged the manual. Agreed regarding accreditation bodies, but there are people out there who do not want to challenge even their registrar, much less take it to the next level.


Maybe there should be a place to air grievances, but I wouldn't recommend it while you still have a business relationship with either a supplier or a customer. It is to try and reduce the instances of a customer having to sling their registrar out that I initially proposed a forum to discuss non compliances. I am not saying this is easy - I understand the risks. My point in this is that I would like to know about problems with the assessment process before I get the boot from a customer. These fora are filled with flak for registrars - there is an opportunity to discuss things openly and give registrars a right to reply to dumb non compliances.

Can we just agree I won't suggest it again - the problem with tongue in cheek statements is that you can end up getting it bitten off.:agree:

There are many reasons why, one of which is it's just not professional. What is not professional in the example that started this is the initial assessment and raising of a non compliance. Everything after that is trying to make the best of a bad job.

I don't think I'm wrong in this respect. You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine. Agree completely. I may disagree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it (to paraphrase a much more noble statement).

Good grief guys I was joking....has everyone taken an overdose of loss of humor medication?

What I'm really hoping is that I personally didn't have anything to do with the training of whoever created this "new" requirement, because if I did some reevaluation is necessary.

Partially :topic: :
When I was in high school, we had a physical education coach who probably should have been institutionalized. Whenever a dispute arose between boys, all activity stopped while Coach Oker rigged up a boxing ring and brought out 16 ounce gloves for the combatants to wear. Then he would referee for up to four 3-minute rounds while the school boys pummeled each other to the cheers and jeers of the rest of a 50 or 60 boy class.


So, Al & Paul, Coach Oker is long dead, but I have some 16 ounce gloves . . .:rolleyes:

Partially :topic: :
When I was in high school, we had a physical education coach who probably should have been institutionalized. Whenever a dispute arose between boys, all activity stopped while Coach Oker rigged up a boxing ring and brought out 16 ounce gloves for the combatants to wear. Then he would referee for up to four 3-minute rounds while the school boys pummeled each other to the cheers and jeers of the rest of a 50 or 60 boy class.


So, Al & Paul, Coach Oker is long dead, but I have some 16 ounce gloves . . .:rolleyes:No need for them on my part.

No need for them on my part.After one session in the ring, I, too, learned to resolve differences (or ignore them) lest they come to the notice of "da coach.":agree:

Nobody really wins in boxing matches or any fights, for that matter. Look at poor Muhammed Ali and what boxing has done to his brain.

After one session in the ring, I, too, learned to resolve differences (or ignore them) lest they come to the notice of "da coach.":agree:

Nobody really wins in boxing matches or any fights, for that matter. Look at poor Muhammed Ali and what boxing has done to his brain.

Why is it the offer of boxing gloves comes just as the protagonists have shaken hands and are moving back to their corners?

Good grief guys I was joking....has everyone taken an overdose of loss of humor medication?

What I'm really hoping is that I personally didn't have anything to do with the training of whoever created this "new" requirement, because if I did some reevaluation is necessary.
Exactly.
I think Randy, like all of us in the forum representing registrars are praying this guy doesn't work for us! Sidney is in the clear, care of Roxane, I am confident it is not us.