I'd like to get some feedback from folks on Registrars. One's you've had direct experiences with specifically.

What I would like to do, if enough folks respond, it to put together a 'recommended registrar' listing or something to that effect.

Any takers?

Is this fair for me to answer??????....I will be 100% objective......

UCAS........my choice is URS out of London
RvA........my choice is NTC-CS out of Boxboro Mass
RAB ...well I guess NTS-CS for that as well

QS would be either. Have had experience with several auditors at both for several years (some when they were with other registrars) and have nothing but thorough, clean professional audits. Both have US and European offices.

ISO14000......URS

$$$ they are equally competitive....

I have audited contract for them both and several others....they are my choice for my clients. I get to see them from both sides, and they are equally professional.

It's fair for anyone to answer - I'll put in my 2cents worth soon. I'm trying to finish a project plan and then I'll jump in.

Short list for me is:
DNV
LRQA
AGA
Entela

Note: This is from 1998!

My company is going for registration in the spring, and this would be very helpful to me, and I'm sure alot of others.
Hope to see lots of information!
And when we finally pick one, I'll be happy to keep putting input in here as to how they are doing.

Our company uses UL. They have some good auditors, but require too much documentation. I have also worked with American Quality Assessors(AQA) and they are fair-priced and have good auditors.

We currently use KPMG, but are currently in the process of getting quotes from other registrars. KPMG appears to be "in bed" too much with the Big 3, and are not as objective as what we want.

We use UL for a corporate Worldwide registration, audits so far have been good from our point of view, They are pretty responsive if we have a question (via a direct line to corporate rep) but the customer service side e.g scheduling is pretty weak.

Our registrar is Entela. I have been satisfied with their performance thus far. They are responsive to our questions, and the auditors are (for the most part) pretty competent.

I have noticed some inconsisitency between auditors, as far as interpretations.....i guess this is to be expected to some degree. I know of a company.that uses AQA..I know this company intimately, (not my current employer).....AQA registered them (ISO 9001), with no non-compliances..I found this incredible, sinc the company is wrought with problems. Makes me wonder how thorough the auditors are. FYI


Bryon

Marc,
It might be interesting to post a list of important qualities of a registrar and let folks judge a registrar by these items. For instance, I have had experience with UL and AQA. Both have several strengths and weaknesses that might be interesting for others to see. Both in this forum and your old forum, I've seen +'s and -'s for several registrars mentioned in this thread. It might give everyone a little more resolution if we saw a list of important qualities. Just a thought...

Roger...great idea......Marc, how about that? A matrix so you can choose the qualities that you are most interested in..just like the AAA books for motels.

When I started this thread I promised a listing of some sort. OK - well, I started it. Now I need some specific inputs from each of you! If your registrar is not on the list I'll add it. Shoot some specifics. You can do that here or in an e-mail for confidentiality.

Yes - as promised, I've started a basic Registrar Comparison spreadsheet. Take a look. Comments welcomed. I can add columns, etc. If you will forward to me any info I will fill in and update. The current data is not complete. I have to get man-days and some other stuff.

A 'Brief' on registrar considerations is attached.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 16 May 1999).]

Marc,

I work at Apple Computer’s manf. plant in Cork, Ireland. NSAI is the National Standards Authority and they have been our registrar since certification in 1990. BSI (British Standards) do some work in Ireland, but I’ve never heard of anyone else.
NSAI were in the business long before ISO 9000 came along and they are a very professional outfit. My only complaint is that they are too trusting, too nice. When they go away I sometimes think that they should have supported me better by putting the boot in, ie; naming names - or at least org chart descriptions, arranging extra, and expensive re-qualification visits when things are not right. I think the problem with this is that they are so busy that they don’t have a break in their schedule to fit in such followups.
I like them a lot. Our current auditor is an ex Digital man and very experienced. If our engineers follow his investigation closely, they learn a lot about their system and about themselves. Our previous one was a bloodhound - less my style, but he frightened everyone in the plant, barring me of course. I accept no responsibility for anything that they find, because I can always name date, place, record of where I highlighted it and warned them it would happen. So I’m on the side of the bloodhound.
NSAI do a fair bit of work in the US. I’d be interested in any feedback on them, making comparison to indigenous registrars.
John C

First of all, John. You owe me one. A Mac user since 1986, I've STILL got an old LCII and Si in the closet - have an 8500 on my desk and a powerbook 1400 I travel with. Bought a lot of Apple stuff over the years including laser printer and several Apple monitors. Heck - I could have bought a house with all I've spent!

Anyway - in respopnse to your post: This thing is all over the map. Some come in, rush through and get out. Others (ahemmm, like me) are snot nosed independent councils - give us money and we'll look far and deep and talk to everyone you ever knew or have ever spoken with looking for a hole. And it is registrar independent. Rewgistrars may think they have their auditors 'calibrated' but they don't.

I don't know a thing about NASI except what you posted here. Sorry I can't help there. All I can say is you cannot plan on their 'support' by giving management 'the boot' on an issue. As you have experienced with couple of auditors you have experience with - each has his/her own way. In some ways it's a view of what is 'appropriate' by each person.

The following is from a person who recently e-mailed me which further points out some 'problems' with ISO and registrars. This person cites an experience with NSAI - read closely.

-------snippo-------

Subject: Re: Registrar Quality
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 02:29:01 +0000
From: Marc Smith
Organization: Cayman Systems
To: XXXX@aol.com

First of all, I want you to know that I *sincerely* appreciate not only your feedback, but the detail into which you have gone as well. I assure you I will keep the source info confidential. I believe this is in response to my saying let the registrar determine whether you're compliant to the spec or not. I am mainly going to respond to the auditing end of it as I am under no delusion that registrars know heck from shine-ola, as my pappy used to say. They are inconsistent, can be (and are every day) bought off in one way or another, and are becoming more and more of a useless entity which basically is a money hole. Your portrayal of FedEx was excellent! And, sadly, typical

Actually, I do agree with you and know of what you speak. In fact, I am at a new client facility this week (QS update) - a UL registration last fall I have to laugh at. No way they were compliant at the time of the audit and they're far from it now. What surprised me was UL's reputation for being sticklers. Geeze - what sleeze. As I have now passed through over 6 years of implementations I find registrars becoming more and more useless, in fact.

And a brief: I have been involved in ISO since 1992-3 and took my first 'Lead Auditor' course in April 1994. I was 'hip' to QS before it was released by a year with my first implementation about 4 years ago. I haven't been at it 'forever' but I've been at it for a while. I have planned implementation at large companies (Motorola - Semi-Conductor sector - some 20,000 souls all in all) and small (Eagle Chemicals - 14 souls at the time). I'm not sure what an 'expert' is, but I do have a bit of experience. My resume is at http://Elsmar.com/resume.html

So far, none of my implementation clients have had a registrar problem. In large part (IMHO) because I force them to know the spec - all managers. And at least one of them has to fully understand how QS applies across the board. I see compliance with ISO or QS as a function of a management person and I see registration as an exercise after compliance has been achieved.

No - I do not see the registrar as the sole source for compliance confirmation. As I said above, I expect each company / facility to have a local expert. I will not take a contract unless I believe they understand this and I have 'quit' several companies which did not provide the person. My point is that I believe after the major systems are established they should be reviewed for compliance prior to revision by the company expert.

No - I do not see compliance to ISO or QS as the job of an internal auditor. I believe the internal auditor function is being sold with minimal basis for the neccessity. With consideration to the significant problems we 'professionals' have in interpreting QS (and to a lesser degree ISO) I find it amusing that folks want to take floor personnel and managers and make them 'professionals' in ISO or QS. Part of my bias may be in that so many companies are streached so lean that folks have trouble getting their jobs done as it is - not to mention throwing on another 'job'. I would rather have them doing the job they are hired to do well and spending their time there.

I have also been privy to many conversations where the internal auditor admits that s/he 'didn't find problems' in large part due to personal connections with one or more of the folks being audited. "John's group is under the gun and I saw no reason to complicate matters" is not at all uncommon.

My latest client also illustrates what I often find - with so much going on the planned audits just stopped. As one plant manager told me "I'm trying to get product out the door. There won't be a company to audit if I don't get these messes cleaned up." Now I know that's not what we want to hear, but often times it is the 'Real Life' of the situation.

To me, to believe that internal auditors are some kind of saviour is silly. And I simply believe out-sourced audits make good sense. Admittedly some internal auditing scenarios using company personnel work out well - for as far as they go - but I have say that I believe the majority are not what they could be with out-sourced audits.

This said, it is clear that there is an ever increasing legion of 'qualified' auditors who are trash. I always run my clients past an RAB auditor prior to pre-assessment - to check me, actually. Several times I have gotten trash. One guy's big bitch was a confusing procedural numbering system. He was right - it was confusing - but that was not his business. He was an ex- college professor who saw the $ signs in ISO and auditing. He made me look pretty bad with his harping about changing the numbering system (this was a facility of a large multi-national corporation). But - he was 'certified' by the RAB as a QS Lead Auditor!!! And he had never once held a manufacturing job!!!

Your point is well taken. You will get no argument from me on crappy registrars and auditors. But this is all fast becoming a joke. When I started consulting in ISO the registrars checked things and did an 'overly' good job. Now - they are falling into the $ rut. I now see them as a 'baseline' function. This is to say they provide for your facility a base line of what *they* will accept (which in many cases is next to anything). If anything I misspoke by saying registrars should check for compliance to the spec.

My point in pointing to the registrars is that anyone worth his/her salt can pretty much tell after a thorough review of a systems manual and the supporting level 2 procedures whether the company is compliant to ISO or QS (systems design wise). If a registrar does a document review and pronounces everything OK and then comes to me and tells me I have a major nonconformance because the design of 1 or more systems is not compliant during a registration audit, I really want to know what I paid for a document review for. In fact, I council my clients - Your pre-assesment should be limited to document reviews. At Motorola, Guadalajara we had LRQA auditors spend the pre-assessment in separate conference rooms. Not once did we let them out onto the factory floor. They went thorugh level 2's and the called out level 3's - down to control plans and control plan content, etc. Company employees responsible for their documentation went through it and provided 'evidence' through 'runners'. All I want at a pre-assessment is the OK that all the defined systems are compliant and that the entire intent of ISO (or QS) is addressed. *I* will ensure the folks are following the procedures (as will the registrar during the registration and subsequent audits). You give me those level 2 documents and I will tell you whether a company's internal systems are compliant or not to the spec. No - I cannot yet tell if folks are doing what they are supposed to - that's an internal auditing function and a function of the assessment (and subsequent) audits.

If my systems are compliant, my expectation is that any company with any smarts at all will ensure a review of any change to a 'master' system by the company 'knowledge base'. With that said, the only significant change to 'master' systems should be when the spec is updated anyway (unless there is a significant change in the company/facility as a whole).

I stand by my opinion that internal audits should be out-sourced. Companies have enough problems even reactiing to the audit findings when the audit reveals problems. Reaction is where the real meat is anyway. I wouldn't want my employees auditing - I want them out there solving problems whether current (reacting) or possible (preventive actions). I want to let them do their business. I don't want to saddle them with another job to LEARN.

And lets face it - you don't send someone to a lead auditor course and expect a professional. A guy called the other morning - ****, he called me frantic on a Sunday morning at 7:30AM (I can handle it - I'm a professional! Hee hee hee!) - he told me he took the (AIAG?) QS internal auditor course and did well on planning and such but said he screwed up the interpretations part. He wanted to know if that was typical. I told him what I believe - there are grand expectations that internal auditors know and be able to interpret the spec. GIVE me a break. Auditors within registrar firms often do not agree on interpretations and they're supposed to be professionals dealing with QS and/or ISO every day! And we want an inspector (this fella was a line inspector) to interpret it? Give me a break again! Apparently this guy's supervisor is pissed because he didn't pass as didn't another person from his company who went through it. If it was my company, I would want that guy learning more about inspection - I didn't hire him to be an auditor.

A last thought. Take a spreadsheet and figure costs. For many companies it is simply not cost effective. Training, total time off job, total audit hours per year, losses through transfers and turn-over. Often they would be better off hiring someone just to do internal audits. Outsourcing them eliminates burden - you pay only the hours.

My opinion. However, I again want to say I *appreciate* your e-mail. More than you may understand. It *has* helped me calibrate myself to some increasingly troubling realities - registrars are going for the money in this case. It is the case that I believe the push for internal auditors is a $$$$ based push from interested (to say the least) parties. I look to the nuclear / banking / financial models for auditing guidelines - inside audits are for compliance to internal systems / requirements (do what you say) while the meat of compliance to spec is 'company expert' and external audits terratory.

With all this said - it will not change my standard - which is to ensure a client is compliant to the spec and that folks are doing 'what they say' (I will say several have not 'let me do my job'). I will NOT assume the registrar will be bought off and will thus will be 'gentle'. In a recent conversation with a client I said (several times, actually) that they would not have wanted ME as their auditor at registration - that they would not have passed. No way. He agreed this was the case.

We are becoming a world of auditors and audits - and I'm not convinced they are but a temporary step in the long history of manufacturing and providing services. Going back to the trade routes and civilizations of hundreds, nay, thousands of years ago, the auditors were sent by the king (or whatever the local ruler was called). Guess why.

Unfortunately I have some old-school republicanism in me. If I make a good product and it works for you and you want to buy it, then do so. Don't tell me how to make it. If I produce crap or have many 'nonconformances' shipped, you will stop buying from me. It's no one's business how I make or do something. tis is all about LIABILITY IMHO. Nothing more - nothing less.

XXXX@aol.com wrote:

> Hello Marc,
> I decided to take this off the list because I thought it in poor taste
> and not necessarily appropriate for all to see.
> I totally disagree with your statement about the jobs being done by
> registrars. I don't mean to say all registrars are either bad or good. Nor
> that all auditors are either bad or good. But I do know of some bad registrars
> and some bad auditors.
>
> I should preface my information by letting you know that my company is a
> consulting firm which specializes in helping companies get and maintain ISO
> along with TQM and a few other things including a software product which helps
> with quality record keeping for both ISO and QS. While I am not asking you to
> go to our web site if you want more information our web site is at
> *** DEAD LINK REMOVED ***. Asie from that I will get on with
> my examples.
>
> I know of 3 companies who have been audited by U.L. which had glaring
> wholes in the system. In each case the auditor just turned their head and
> looked the other way. Additionally in a separate audit of one of the companies
> the auditor said "If I come back tomorrow morning, I'm sure that will be fixed
> so I will audit it then." And he did just that. The worst offender has so
> much conflicting information in their procedures and manual it is an auditors
> nightmare. In their case I only try to teach their internal auditors what to
> look for. However, each class keeps questioning the standard requirements
> since they keep passing their audits. It is impossible to explain to an
> internal auditor why the standard says one thing and the registrar doesn't
> even audit for it or give them a non conformance.
>
> Two of the people in my company did two preassessment audits on a company.
> The first had major non conformances in almost every section so they asked to
> come back after they corrected the first findings and do a much lessor audit
> the second time. We found they still had major non conformances in three
> sections of the standard. The biggest being document control. Mostly a people
> doing their own copying and then having obsolete documents. (A management
> discipline issue.) The company was due to be audited by TUV Rheinland but we
> knew how their auditor audited and indicated they would not pass without
> fixing the problems. A company they knew had used BSI so they decided to use
> BSI instead. BSI passed them even with the major problems. When one of the
> people we know well asked about not being strict, the auditor told him that
> they used to be strict but too many people complained so they didn't want to
> get people mad so they made most things observations instead.
>
> In an audit a couple of years ago by NSAI, one of the auditors spent two whole
> days in an office going over documents and asking the employees if they
> complied. She actually gave them non conformances because the line between the
> header and the text of the procedure was not all the way to the edge of the
> page on some of the procedures. At the same time she never audited three
> sections of the standard. This was their first audit and by NSAI requirements
> all areas were suppose to be audited. She is no longer with the company.
>
> I have personally been on two of the UL audits and an audit by TUV Rheinland
> which has been a waste of money for the company being audited. They got a
> piece of paper on the wall but not a good audit.
>
> At the same time I have seen the auditors go off the other way and require
> things that are not in the standard. The same NSAI auditor when questioned by
> our person indicated that they were not limited to the standard. It was their
> job to help make sure the company had a good system and that it met their
> requirements not just the requirements of the standard. In their case when her
> manager was contacted they played emotional blackmail with the complaint. The
> customer had a deadline from a corporate office for getting registered and
> NSAI said that if they wanted to challange it there would be a delay in their
> registration of several month while the review was done.
>
> As recently as 2 weeks ago I had a client who was audited by an ABS auditor
> who made them call us and have us provide training records for all of our
> trainers. We were qualified as a company by them in 1993 and have provided
> services about once a year ever since. When we provide our lead auditor
> training certificates again along with all our company information which was
> obsoleted several years back since they only need to keep it for two years by
> their procedures, he still gave them an observation because he did not
> recognize one of the companies who provided the lead assessor training.
>
> As you may have seen on the list we have had clients who have gotten minor non
> conformances or observations for nnot having ansi Z540 or Guide 25. WHile I
> agree with the messages about using old documents, it is sometimes hard to get
> the auditor to agree. And some feel they have sole power.
>
> We have written corrective action requests on behalf of our clients or helped
> our client write corrective actions for non conformances which were not valid.
> TUV Rheinland is the only one who has done a good job of reviewing the
> nonconformance and the information provided and gotten back to the client in a
> timely manner. The others either do not reply or like NSAI use blackmail to
> keep the complaint from being addressed.
>
> The funniest response I got was from Lloyd's in regards to FedEX whom I feel
> even today bought their certificate and Lloyd's. Having personally tried to
> obtain a corrective action response from Fedex all the way from the local
> office to their corporate customer service and quality group without response,
> I wrote an action request to Lloyd's. Background: if you have time and want to
> follow up on this try calling you local service rep and ask them if they know
> what ISO is and the company policy. Also what their procedures are for
> corrective action and providing a response when requested by the customer.
> They don't know the policy, don't know what ISO is and can not get or provide
> a response letter no matter what. Our company is small so I thought maybe you
> had to be a big customer to get a response. I asked one of my clients who at
> the time was 12th on the list of American electronic and electromechanic parts
> distributors. They send out numerous packages per day using both UPS and
> FEDEX. They got the same response.
>
> When I talked to an auditor from Lloyd's at a local ISO USer Group he said he
> would look into it for me. Which he did pass on to someone. We got a letter
> from Lloyd's which included a page from FEDEX which said they were registered
> world wide and what the scope was. The letter went on to say they had in fact
> done their audit from the corporate office with calls to selected branches (or
> local offices). So I tried again with some of the major locations such as
> Miami, Los Angeles, San Fransisco, and New Jersey. The results were the same.
> They had no clue as to what I (or my cleints) were asking for.
>
> In summary: for every four good audits I have been in with my clients, I have
> seen one bad. The bad was either not really looking at the system or injecting
> their own standards as opposed to the ISO standards.

This is, and has been, common.

> In my conversation with one registrar, this is expected to get worse since
> more and more of the registrars are going to sub contractors. What they have
> seen is a control issue with the sub's they had used and so they are avoiding
> going that way. In some cases, the sub wants to make a name for themself and
> over audits. In others they feel if the customer is happy they will get more
> work.
>
> Sorry for the length of this message

It is GREAT! Thanks! Not too long. Well detailed, and I appreciate it!

> but I think you should be aware that all
> is not as you seem to think it is.

Sadly, I have been aware of this for some years - it is precisely why I put
up my web site over 3 years ago.

I had this archived - thought I'd throw it in for the heck of it:

Subject: ISO9000 Digest - 18 Oct 1997 to 23 Oct 1997
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 00:54:01 -0500
From: Automatic digest processor
Reply-To: ISO9000 Standards Discussion
To: Recipients of ISO9000 digests

There are 7 messages totalling 285 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

1. Recommended ISO Registrars/Berry
2. Recommended ISO Registrars/Miholland
3. Recommended ISO Registrars/Turner
4. Recommended ISO Registrars/Bigelow
5. Recommended ISO Registrars/Randall
6. Recommended ISO Registrars/Labertew
7. Recommended ISO Registrars/Richardson

-------------------------

21-OCT-1997 09:29:19.90

In a message dated 97-10-18 21:09:04 EDT, you write:

> My question is: Has anyone had any experience or recommendations
> regarding the four firms we will be interviewing? Or maybe a highly
> recommended alternate registrar to those listed?
>
> * National Quality Assurance
> * DNV Det Norsne Veritas
> * Perry Johnson and Associates
> * Intertek
>
> Thanks for your consideration/response.

------------>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<----------

Subject: Re: Recommended ISO Registrars/Berry
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:39:14 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

In response to your inquirey, here is a little data on some of the Registrar
you indicated:

1. DNV -- good reputation in the industry -- many great people -- as will all Registrars the Lead Auditor you are assigned is critical.

2. Intertek -- solid organization -- good Auditors -- good customer service.

3. Perry Johnson Registrar (PJR) -- not to be confused with sister organization Perry Johnson Inc. (PJI - Training & Consulting) -- rumors are that they are under investigation by RvA (Dutch Accreditation Body) and may have sanctions imposed -- use great caution -- may want to contact RvA to confirm their status before selection.

Since, ANSI-RAB Accreditated Registrars are accepted world wide there are currently 80 (+) registrars operating in North America -- there are many excellent registrar to select from. You may also want to consider PRO, Inc. in Northville, MI - contact Mr. Chuck Schleyer at 800-793-4408.

Oliver V. Berry
QS-Lead Auditor (ANSI-RAB)
QS-Senior Auditor (QSA)
QS9000 - Certified Auditor - AIAG

-----------------------------

Subject: Re: Recommended ISO Registrars/Miholland
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:40:04 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

From: Jim Miholland" 18-OCT-1997 20:57:57.03

Recommendation:
Have some experience with several registrars, very impressed with KPMG, recommend inclusion in your interview list.
Jim Milholland
Milholland Quality Consulting

--------------------------

Subject: Re: Recommended ISO Registrars/Turner
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:40:55 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

From: "Robert Turner" 19-OCT-1997 06:08:34.51

You should really be looking for registrars with a stronger international profile. In Northern Europe DNV are well known, but I've never heard of the others. Lloyds, SGS have a good international profile, maybe also TUV, BVQI.

Bob Turner.

my own opinions of course.....

*************************
Robert Turner, Zigomar Belgium

Office tel +32 16 20 07 87 fax +32 16 20 76 67
Home tel/fax +32 3 449 90 13

*********************************

Subject: Re: Recommended ISO Registrars/Bigelow
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:41:23 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

From: "Jim Bigelow" 20-OCT-1997 17:17:43.52

In my experience, DNV, ABS, BSI and SGS all do a good job and
well established global reputations.

Jim Bigelow

------------------------

Subject: Re: Recommended ISO Registrars/Randall
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:42:44 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

----------------

I have worked as a full time employee for NQA (National Quality Assurance) and as a contract auditor (I left them to pursue consulting opportunities about 2 yrs ago). I have also worked as a contract auditor for ITS Intertek. I have had friends/associates who worked as contract auditors for "Perry Johnson and Associates". I know very little about DNV.

Based on all of this information, I would strongly encourage anyone seeking registration to select either NQA or Intertek. I know that they are both very good registrars with good auditors. I am on a first name basis with the presidents of both of these registrars. NQA and Intertek both have my highest recommendation. In fact, I currently have a consulting client going through ISO 9002 registration with Intertek. I have only heard bad reports about "Perry Johnson and Associates." Although it was "hearsay," I trust the sources enough to take their advice.

BTW, I understand that many of the auditors at NQA and Intertek use my book (Randall's Practical Guide to ISO 9000) to assist them in interpreting the standard.

Richard C. Randall

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Recommended ISO Registrars/Labertew
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:43:40 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

From: "LALABERTEW" 21-OCT-1997 10:46:31.24

Perry Johnson is very competitive. I've interviewed 2 Lead Assessors. Make sure whoever you use you interview the Lead Assessor. Don't know the other registrars.

Lowell Labertew

---------------------------
Subject: Re: Recommended ISO Registrars/Richardson
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:44:37 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

21-OCT-1997 19:15:43.43

I used the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) in registering the 11 sites of a durable goods manufacturer around the world, including 5 in Europe, a site in Korea and one in Japan. They were recommended to me by folks at Unisys and Beckman Instruments; the latter have used them globally as well. They have also done work for Apple Computer. They are extremely "user friendly" and their auditors, at least the two we used, were Irish, real pros and expert at interviewing and working with employees without terrifying them. They are small, making all their clients "special". If you contact them, I have the names of the two of auditors I worked with and who I would highly recommend.

Good luck.

Roy Richardson


[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 16 May 1999).]

Another voice!

Subject: Re: Q: Registrar Selection /Cogan/Naish
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 14:21:31 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

Subject: Re: Q: Registrar Selection /Cogan/Naish

Ken,

Too answer the second question first. There may be some consultants who will give you an unbiased opinion. I can't exactly say who but I am sure there are those who exist. As a consultant it is hard for me to be truly unbiased. I have had clients use a number of different registrars but can say in all honesty that I have a couple of registrars I would never use again and a couple whom I favor because they the client a good fair audit for their money.

If you are going to use a consultant to help with the implementation you may want to listen to their recommendations. They will be able to recommend companies they have used and have found successful. If you are doing the implementation on your own, then I might check with several consultants and see who they recommend but more importantly check with other companies in your business segment.

As to question number one: First, as stated before check with other companies in your business. Who did they use? What did they like or dislike? Have they seen inconsistencies between auditors from the same registrar (one auditor passes it and praises it and the next auditor finds fault with it)? Who was their auditor specifically?

In the results of your checks you want to try to get more than one opinion on the same registrar but you also want to try to make sure that more than one auditor is included so you can see if the opinion is based on the personality of one auditor versus more from the same registrar.

I would be careful about shying away from a registrar just because of one bad opinion of one auditor. Sometimes we all have a bad hair day so it could have been a one time thing. If you are leaning toward a particular registrar check out their web site if they have one. Most have some of their clients listed so contact one or two additional ones from the list and see what the reports from them are like.

You should also rate the response time from the registrar and the way they treat you on the initial and any subsequent calls. Do you stay on hold for long periods of time? Does it take them minutes, hours, or days to get back to you with information and answers? Years ago I sent a questionnaire to a number of registrars when I was trying to make a decision for the company I worked for. I was surprised at how many who would not fill out my questionnaire just sent a canned package or who wanted me to pay money before they would do anything. Yet I am sure in audits, the auditors want you to get your questionnaires back from your suppliers and potential suppliers. They are a supplier too! Send your potential supplier questionnaire and see what your response is.

In a discussion with a client of mine today, she asked: " Don't they have to live up to the same requirements they audit us for? I sure think they should be treated the same as any other potential supplier and if they can't respond then they should not be in the business. I sure won't use them.

If you are on aol and go to keyword PNENT or anyone of a number of other sites you will find sites which links to a large number of the registrars. Also Asq has a link I believe as well.

Phyllis

We have recently been recommended for registration through an audit team from QCB of Edmonton Canada. They were the least expensive of the four we received quotes from and overall a very helpful group. Bill Lasby was the lead auditor and I found him to be very professional and down to earth enough to get our employees to feel comfortable with being audited. I would recommend QCB to anyone. If anyone has any questions of me on our registration process, please ask.

Registrars:

Hmmmm... very interesting. For our initial assessment we picked what we felt were 8 of the most highly recognized names with the best reputations.

We settled on choosing between BSI or TUV America. The choice was NOT based upon price, that is not a smart way to choose something as important as a registrar.

In any event, we chose TUV America and have had a wonderful experience for 3 full years. I would highly recommend them to anybody.

HOWEVER, we just transferred our certification to BSI for a variety of reasons this year. They include:

1) Flat rate for audits. NO travel fees, no associated expenses, and so on. One price. It pained us to switch from TUV but the cost savings was significant. At the end of 3 years with TUV you have a full-blown recert audit, which you do not have with BSI.
2) Availability of auditors close to home.
3) More in-line with future strategic plans... most of our automotive customers are registered using BSI (we thought it would look good), and also future initiatives including our upgrade to QS-9000 and EN46000. We felt that, at this time, they were in a better position to serve us going forward.

We JUST had our surveillance audit with BSI and had a wonderful experience. They are just as open-minded and helpful as TUV America. They definitely have a cooperative mindset - a "joint venture" if you will. It helped to convince us that we made the correct decision regarding the transfer.

We used NSAI at our Ireland facility. Our staff there had only the best to say about NSAI.

What I have heard about others:

1) DNV - reputable, cooperative, good choice.
2) UL - Stay away. The most consistent complaint that I have heard (especially with regard to ISO) is that their auditors "read" more into the Standard than is there. They are narrowminded and less flexible than others when interpreting what is REQUIRED.
3) Perry Johnson - I personally don't like them because they badger me with cold-calls and deluge me in faxes for auditing, training, and all of the other stuff that they do.

My recommendation... stay with the big names. We have had wonderful personal experiences with TUV America, British Standards Institution (BSI), and NSAI. I assure you that you could pick any of the above and do well for yourself.

ALM

I know that y'all are talking mainly about 9000 stuff, but I've started questioning things about 14000.

I've discovered, through conversations and resume submittals, that a majority of the registrars don't really want the most "qualified" people on their audit teams. They seem to want the folks that look best on paper.

I'm a new 14000 auditor (RAB Provisional). I'm a Provisional Auditor because I don't have any experiance auditing under an EMS standard. I do have over nine years of compliance auditing (inspecting) under California EPA requirements and about 2 years as an Internal 9000 auditor. I took a 14000 Lead Auditors course and got certified by the RAB. I hold 2 other professional credential in the environmental field (one granted by the state of California). But now I am being told I am not qualified to do audits. even on a contract basis.

A good many of the 14000 LA's cherished by the registrars could not go through the same process I just finished because they are not the environmental professionals the standard (14012) recommends. They may have the auditing background, but thats it. Quite honestly, I believe most of them may not even know what they are looking at.

Auditee's may be buying a bill of goods here too.

I'll make 1 comment on the last post - you would be surprised how many ISO9000 auditors are 'just auditors' with no manufacturing or other business related experience. QS auditors are not that much better. I see the ignorant basta_ds all the time. It's a shame.

I know that y'all are talking mainly about 9000 stuff, but I've started questioning things about 14000.

I've discovered, through conversations and resume submittals, that a majority of the registrars don't really want the most "qualified" people on their audit teams. They seem to want the folks that look best on paper.

I'm a new 14000 auditor (RAB Provisional). I'm a Provisional Auditor because I don't have any experiance auditing under an EMS standard. I do have over nine years of compliance auditing (inspecting) under California EPA requirements and about 2 years as an Internal 9000 auditor. I took a 14000 Lead Auditors course and got certified by the RAB. I hold 2 other professional credential in the environmental field (one granted by the state of California). But now I am being told I am not qualified to do audits. even on a contract basis.

A good many of the 14000 LA's cherished by the registrars could not go through the same process I just finished because they are not the environmental professionals the standard (14012) recommends. They may have the auditing background, but thats it. Quite honestly, I believe most of them may not even know what they are looking at.

Auditee's may be buying a bill of goods here too.

FYI

SIC codes are being replaced.

From: "Nick Roadnight" <nickr@tellus.co.uk>
Subject: RE: QAS LTD /Murray/Roadnight

John,

This company (QAS) has been around for a long time, and I believe formerly investigated by the DTI and a whole load of Business Links and TECs in the UK. As far as I understand it, not enough evidence is available to stop their practice, but the advice that has been published to all Business Support Organisations (Business Links, Training and Enterprise Councils, Enterprise Agencies, Registered/Accredited Consultants and Economic Development Departments) is to advise those considering the use of QAS to compare them against accredited certification companies and seek references from past customers of both. I have interpreted this as steer well clear!

What they offer is a service 'guaranteed to achieve a system compliant to ISO9000'. The wording is very important. 'Compliant to ISO9000' does not mean that your operations will get through a formal audit. They award you the QAS certificate for achieving a system 'compliant to ISO9000', but they are not accredited to award certificates (thus can not display the 'tick and crown).

There have been several hundred official complaints against this company across the country, which I understand resulted in a more formal investigation. The majority of the complaints centred around the fact that QAS use a standard procedures manual and 'search and replace' company names.

Whilst I personally think that using others learning to help you to design and implement your own system (i.e. getting copies of others procedures), using their procedures verbatim is never the right answer as we all do things slightly differently.

I do have to say though that it never ceases to surprise me that so many get caught by these types of schemes. It pangs of the get rich quick schemes, i.e. for very little effort you can achieve what the vast majority of others have to work long and hard to achieve.

I hope that this helps, but if you want more information, either on QAS or ISO9000, please contact me.

Regards,

Nick

We are recently registered to ISO9002 (94), QS9000 & TE Supplement (98) using NSF/ISR. We found them very thorough and appropriately helpful (within the constraints of external auditors, clear definitions and interpretations). We would recommend them.

We have just undergone an assessment with BVQI. Although, I heard several stories that they too do not write up nonconformances and it seems to be a big joke, I was happily suprised. Maybe a little too suprised at how thorough and well done the audit was. He was an excellent auditor, and he gave me many new value added ideas. He dug alot further than I thought he would for an assessment. I was impressed with his expertise, although the reasons could possibly (never know for sure) because he just went through the auditor re-exam and the AIAG is coming down very hard on auditors because of the several reasons stated in this forum. I was also informed of that at FMEA training this past spring. I think the AIAG has decided to make them work for their pay check. At any rate, I was very pleased (and very worn out) at the end of the three day audit.

I just went through an audit for a company that I consulted with for ISO9002, and they used QMI, I was very impressed with the Auditor and QMI as well. I have also had a very, very bad experience with Lloyds and would not recommend them. The initial audit was extremely bad, but the follow up Auditor I was impressed with. That one bad Auditor ruined me for Lloyds. Unfortunately, we had a poor example of a person, let alone an Auditor for our initial audit. When you have a company work very hard at implementing a Quality System, and you have a Quality Manager (me) telling everyone that this will be difficult and stressful, then the Auditor comes in and talks to one person in the Eng Dept for 10 minutes. After that everyone thinks it's a joke, and I kinda do too. He then decided to write a minor because Lloyds did not sent back the supplier survey that was sent for the Approved Supplier List. He thought it would be funny to send a noncompliance in that was caused by Lloyds. I didn't!!
I don't have a problem having a noncompliance written when we have a noncompliance, but I do if it comforms to the standard. I also have a problem with Auditors not writing a nonconformance, when there is one.
Too many Auditors have different interpretations of the standard, they need to standardize the Auditors.
I have also heard horror stories of Perry Johnson. A company had a Auditor write 3 majors in 4.1.2.2 Resources. Can someone tell me where in 4.1.2.2 it states you have to have a procedure.
When choosing a Registrar do a lot of investigating, there is no better way than word of mouth.

Having been through the registrar selection process twice in less than three years (2 different companies), I feel comfortable sharing my experience.
First of all, I think we can all agree there are several/many good firms out there. The TUVs, DNVs, ABS-QEs, and more "big names" are all good. The consideration has to be with "chemistry", cost, and perception of customer service.
I would never select UL. Years ago, they lied about their credentials, claiming something before it was reality. I lost respect for them right then.
Perry Johnson treads a thin line regarding consultation. That, plus their rude cold calls turned me off.
In the ISO 9001 world, I selected ABS-Quality Evaluations out of Houston. They were and are excellent. Three and 1/2 years ago, they were also hungry and put together quite an attractive financial package. Since that time, they have ceased their customer surveys of the process and auditor performance. That proved to be a dissatisfier to me. That does not take away from the excellence and consistency I saw from auditor to auditor.
In the ISO 9002/QS-9000 world, I have selected Smithers Quality Assessments out of Akron, Ohio. I did this for several reasons. First, they are among the most knowlegable about QS-9000 of the twenty registrars with whom I spoke. Second, they are reasonably local to me in southwest Michigan. (No one should tolerate huge auditor travel costs any more.) Third, they have been very service/customer oriented. And, they were cost competitive.
I interviewed NSF out of Ann Arbor. From their auditor, I got incorrect answers to some of the questions. They were out.
I interviewed Entela. They did OK, but when I made contact with their references, I was given the horror stories of the repeat follow-up visits and extra billings. And, now I understand they might be under RAB investigation.
If this is at all helpful to anyone, great. The most important thing to do is to set your criteria, that is your customer expectations, and interview, interview, interview.

------------------
David A. Guffey, CQE, CQA, CQMgr
Director of Quality Assurance
Great Lakes Metal Stamping, Inc.
4607 Rambo Road
Bridgman MI 49106
616-465-4415
616-465-0805 (Fax)

We're registered by UL, and so far I've heard "less flexible" , "reads into standards" "would not recommend", and elsewhere, suspicions of an auditing "quota" of non-conformances and reports of "quirks".
Does anyone have anything good to say about them, or at least a few more recent tales of woe?
Thanks

Originally posted by mac@home:

Does anyone have anything good to say about them, or at least a few more recent tales of woe?Yes - They're practically unimpeachable.

Unimpeachable?
Does that mean they're respected and won't be losing their ability to register companies, or you'll never be able to shake loose of them as your registrar?

UL is well respected and hard to challange. Example: When I briefly interfaced with the Navy they wanted UL as registrar because they believed no one would be able to claim any 'funny business' or such was involved.

Much of this is perception gained from people misunderstanding stuff like the UL label which they mistakenly think has been tested and is thus 'safe'. Few people realize that you (for all intents and purposed) purchase the UL seal of approval - they don't test squat.

Ditto to the ALM post re BSI and UL.

Early on, we were concerned about BSI because we'd heard they were too 'nit-picky' and rigid. Instead, we found them to be very reasonable and helpful. There's nothing easy about their assessors, but we've made many improvements as a result of working with them.

Their reputation and name familiarity is especially helpful when European sales are a consideration.

Marc, Marc, Marc,

UL doesn't test squat??? They have a HUGE (biggest I've seen)testing facility (over 2000 employees) near me in Northbook, IL. They do many fire safety and electrical tests and other stuff.

The ISO/QS 9000 registrations isn't the biggest part of their business. Is it a sideline?

I've found UL to be a compenent auditor/registrar. For better or worse, they do the best job of quality contol (one auditor has the same interpretation as another)of any of the registrars.

I have personal knowledge they have withdrawn from a company where the Management Rep. said documents were being forged (he was fired, I wish it was, but this is not me!).

The problem I have with UL is they do not seem interested in companies with less than 500 employees.

These are where my customers are. I would like to use UL, but they are not cost competitive for small businesses.

By the way, a picky auditor is the Management Repesentative's (not necessarily the consultants) best friend.

Dave

Originally posted by isodog:
Marc, Marc, Marc,

UL doesn't test squat??? They have a HUGE (biggest I've seen)testing facility (over 2000 employees) near me in Northbook, IL. They do many fire safety and electrical tests and other stuff.Yes - they sure do a lot of testing. But - just because you see a UL listing label on a product does not mean that specific product has been tested. The majority of UL 'approvals' are not, in fact, given on the basis of any testing of any kind on the specific product . UL testing services are not related to testing for giving the UL approval.

I've found UL to be a compenent auditor/registrar. For better or worse, they do the best job of quality contol (one auditor has the same interpretation as another)of any of the registrars.Anecdotal evidence, including some in this thread (and several other threads here), does not support this. However, each of us has different experiences with different auditors. The problem I have with UL is they do not seem interested in companies with less than 500 employees.And what does this tell us?

It is good that your experiences with UL have been positive. Many have not had the same positive experiences, however.

We use AOQC Moody as our Registrar. I'm not impressed and I'm personally disappointed with with what I believe the lack of veracity of our registration.

My company uses ABS Quality Evaluations. The biggest reason that we decided on ABS was our parent company uses ABS. So far, we do not regret the decision.

On a side note: I do not trust Perry Johnson. I received a phone call from someone at Perry Johnson speaking negatively about another Registrar. The person implied there was a major problem with the other Registrar. When I checked in to what this person said, it was a minor issue. I do not mind other Registrars contacting me to see if I am happy with my current Registrar. I am sure they all want to drum up new business. BUT I do not like someone planting a seed of doubt with no evidence to back it up!

My Experience:

ISO-9001 = DNV Very good all around.

VDA 6.1 = TUV Very poor auditors in Europe

Personnally, British Standards are the one for me. Very helpful and good, practical advice.

Years ago I experienced a continuing assessment from another body. The guy waded through six (yes, 6) years of purchase orders until he found one that had not been correctly authorised. He could not write out the non-conformity quick enough! What was ironic, the order was for toilet cleaning supplies.

He was impervious to appeals. He, and his organisation, took the view that whatever they said at the time of the visit was fully justified, and that I must submit a corrective action plan clear this one point.

I changed to BSI.

We signed on with Perry Johnson and became registetred May 2000.
Auditors were good; Knowledgeable and professional.
Registrar administration was poor; would not return calls, poor scheduling practices, high employee turnover.

My company has been registered with DNV (Long Beach) since 1994. They have been very good to work with and consistent in their interpretation of the standard. We have had several disagreements in interpretation over the years and have discussed these with their Technical Manager in Houston and with his assistance have resolved all issues.

We could not use Perry Johnson. I like many others do not like the cold phone calls or their impression of other registrars.

------------------
Oscar

Underwriters Labratories

We use KPMG as our registar. Most of there do a good job. They have a few who seem to not want to write any findings. Which would be great if everything was great. This hampers our internal auditing process. Management seems to think just because KPMG didn't find anything, everything is okay. I've had an auditor see a finding and look the other way on several occasions.

I've used ABS, DNV and lasly LRQA, bay far DNV is the most consistant in their views of the ISO-9000 standard, their Lead Auditors almost always view the standard the same way, promoting a partnership with their client.

ABS has a different view with each Lead Auditor, LRQA seems to say do it my way or no way.

I hope this helps nad its only my view.

Regards

Wendell Goodson

From: "Wannamaker-Amos, Carmen"
To: Marc
Subject: What Company Is Your Registrar?
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 11:42:23 -0400

Marc,

Our Registrar is ABS QE. They were chosen by a corporate steering committee (11 plant sites were represented.) I am very satisfied with their service to our plant. Unfortunately, they have had some bad press lately.

Carmen D. Wannamaker-Amos
Quality Manager/Management Rep.
American Fibers and Yarns
Spartanburg, South Carolina

Our registrar is Perry Johnson Registrars, Inc. for QS-9000 with TE Supplement. I've had many logistic problems with them, but they seem willing to work them out.

Our registrar is NSF. We have our registration audit for QS 9000 TE next week (Tuesday). Already had our "On-site Readiness Visit". Got lots of added value, especially related to Internal Audits. We'll see what next week brings. Wish me luck!

Michael

We used NSF for our QS9000-TE registration and I could not be more pleased.
Our auditors have been very experienced in real world situations and have been through, yet practical. There have been a couple of minor billing problems, but they were handled very professionally and efficiently. I couldn't be more pleased.

In the midst of re-evaluating our Registrar so we found the "The Second Annual ISO 9000 Registrar Customer Satisfaction Survey" in Quality Digest interesting. Here's the link:
***REMOVED - DEAD LINK ***

I came accross this site while checking the net for some information on registrars. This looked interesting so registered and this is my first posting.

First, some background information. I work for a company that ISO 9001 registered. We use KPMG and have been very happy with their professionalism and level of service. We employ about 200 people. Recently we purchased another company that makes the same product we do. They are also ISO 9001 registered using Perry Johnson Registrars (PJR). Our newly acquired company seems to be happy with PJR. We are up for renewal of our certificate in December of this year. We will be adding TE at that time. PJR has come in with an aggressive proposal that has got the serious attention of our corporate management. Here are my questions:

1- They say they can do our registration audit with 1 auditor in days by using a "Continuous Certification Method". Has anyone out there heard of such a thing?
2- I was under the impression that registrars must follow the guidelines and tables in the appendices of the QS-9000 book. Should they not be on site for at least 6 to 8 days?

To be honest I have not heard very good things said about PJR. But most of this is hearsay from meetings and seminars. Any information on the above questions would be of great help.

Jim Evans

In reviewing my previous post I noticed an error. The PJR propsal is for 1 auditor to do the registration audit in 2 days.

Sorry for the error.

Jim

Originally posted by Jim Evans:


1- They say they can do our registration audit with 1 auditor in days by using a "Continuous Certification Method". Has anyone out there heard of such a thing?

Jim Evans

We are currently under a "Continuous Registration method" for us it is more expensive but every 6 month external audit increments - allows reduction of "Days-onsite" per visit - removes the need for added site audit days for re-registration every 3 years - audit days "per year" are always based on number of employees

Your post "reads" as if PJ were proposing to change-over the registration scope-include and combine both facilities under one audit schedule.. I too have not heard "good things about them - but have no real evidence to back up anything I've read..

Hope this helps
Regards
Jim

I dealt with PJ a year and a half ago. Be sure they know you want certification, not compliance. They have trouble understanding the difference. And be sure you get a qualified TE auditor. Twice they sent ISO 9000 qualified auditors to do a QS 9000 TE audit.

Michael

Thanks for the help. I should also mention the PJR proposal calls for surveillence audits of 1 day every six months. And yes the idea is to combine the two companies into a single audit scheme however we will maintain 2 separate and distinct quality systems. It was my understanding that different quality management systems even in the same facility are required to be audited separately with each having it's own certificate.

Jim Evans

An addendum to my previous post. Our present auditor is calling for 6 days for registration audit and 5 surveillence audits every 6 months of 1 day each. The PJR proposal has the same surveillence scheme but only 2 days for the registration audit. I am concerned about the large discrepency in the registration days. Could this be a problem for me down the road?

Regards,

Jim

Jim, We presently use PJR and I will share our experience with you.

1- PJR uses the same auditors that most other registrars use.
2- High staff turnover rate in there scheduling department.
3- Poor scheduling performance,i.e. scheduled auditor from cal. to do audit in the southwest; resulted in $1400 airfare.
Two auditors arrive at the airport at the same time,diff. flights, and each one rents a car, again resulting in added cost
4- The main office/auditor WILL NOT return phone calls. All telephone contact must be handled through your account rep.
5- One "glitch" that came up during our registration audit; the auditor failed to document the review of our manual,we were told that this would not be a problem, however, when the audit results went up for review we were rejected. We were required to re-submit our manual for review which resulted in a three week delay of receiving our certificate.

I have not heard of the continuous audit program nor have I been able to find it in the QSM, however, as in in any contract get everything in writing.
I would further suggest an on-site meeting with the registrar you select prior to any contractural agreements.

According to Schedule H of QS9000-TE, a company with 200 employees is required to have 8 on-site auditor days for the initial registration and 2 auditor days every 6 months for surveilance. This is not determined by the registrar, but by the standard. I have been told that it is likely I will need to have 4 auditor days for a 10 person company going to QS9000 and QS9000-TE at the same time; 2 auditor days for each standard, even though the requirements overlap considerably. While that may not be logical, I have been told that the RAB has been very stringent about that. Beware of anyone who says they can register your company in less days than the standard requires; there is something they are not telling you. Have them show you (in writing) how they propose to do it, and make sure that it has been approved by the RAB.

Anybody seen the latest Registrar Survey in Quality Digest? My experiences with BSI, Lloyds and UL suggest that the survey is pretty good.

I haven't heard too many people comment about Lloyds. Are they a good registrar? I know UL and I have heard some good things about BSI.

Wallybalo,

What issue of QD are you refering to?

I had a copy e-mailed to me - but it is also net posted curently for the July Issue.

Looks as though it is better information than last years.... appears more comprehensive anyway.

Regards
Jim

Roger: Motorola Semiconductor used Lloyd's when they registered in '98 and it was a really good experience for us (all departments were required to register as a group - if one failed we all failed)- we all passed. (Of course we also had Marc as one of our consultant's so the outcome was preordained!!) The auditor's were tough but willing to work with us when we felt there were discrepancies on how we/they were interpreting standards. Additionally, they were very careful not to consult but provided some guidance on how we might make our system comply and improve with standard requirements. All in all it was a thorough assessment audit and surveillances were getting tougher as they expected our system to be continuously improving (fair enough!)

Jim the Quality Digest link is: *** DEAD LINK REMOVED ***

I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM ANYONE WHO HAS USED SGS AS THEIR REGISTRAR. THEY CLAIM TO BE THE "LARGEST REGISTRAR IN THE WORLD". PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS OF YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THEM. THANKS FOR SHARING.

Perry Johnson Registrars, Inc. is our registrar, as I've mentioned before. The registrar is acceptable at best. The auditors, however, were fantastic. They were able to apply the standard very effectively to our real world situations.

I don't know how to complement them better than this: Our registration was a real value-added experience. The feedback we received from our auditors is going to significantly improve our quality system in the near future. What else is an audit suppose to do?

Dan

We elected to stay with KPMG for another hitch. I for one am glad. I understand the financial people's concern about trying to find lower price providers of services. However I am the one that deals directly with the auditors and I feel that I have a very good idea of what to expect in how those auditors interpret the standard. I was able to make my case by explaining how price is not necessarily the same as value. It didn't hurt either that after my questioning PJR's reduced audit schedule they revised their bid and it was actually higher than KPMG. Now it is on with my preparations for TE due to be audited in December. Thanks to everyone for their opininons and help.

Best Regards,

Jim

Any new comments?

FWIW - We have employed Entela (out of Michigan) since our initial foray into QS (around '96, I think - cobwebs :rolleyes: ). They have "seen us through" the transition to TS-1st ed. and are now ready to audit us against TS-2nd ed. We have also just completed the preassessment audit of 14001 with them. We've been very pleased with the various auditors sent in. They, typically, don't jump to nonconformances, unless it is blatant. The auditors listen to explanations and, if somewhat reasonable, may just offer views on other ways they have "seen it done" which we might want to explore.

I haven't been involved in our surveillance audits for the past few years as my duties have "shifted", but I've not heard anything bad about them - from within or any of their other clients.

Bill

I hate being so negative, but here it goes….

FMRC I believe it’s the acronym for Factory Mutual Research Corp? Here are some of the observations:
Never requested our Quality Manual for review prior to the audit, but it was on the quote and we were charged.
Our company had over 200 employees; the re-certification audit was an 8-hour audit with one auditor.
Our internal audit findings averaged 30 findings a year (at the time there was no upper mgt support)- FMRC’s audits averaged 1 minor finding an audit.
Never followed up on the 1 minor corrective action……EVER!!
Never talked to floor employees or other Management, just QA.
Most of the audit took place in a conference room.
And with our last audit they “Lost” our report. It took them 8 months to send to us.

I could go on, there was one auditor that was good and identified things I was in the internal audits, but he never documented them.

Needless to say we hired a new Registrar. After careful evaluation of five candidates (UL never responded to our request for quote) DNV come up on top thanks to Sidney’s dedication and understanding of what we where looking for and needed. (more $$, but well worth it)

Now I’m in a new Company and have not dealt with the Registrar as of yet. Sadly, based on what I have seen, the QMS and past audits do not meet my expectations. The Company is called AOQC Moody. We are having our transition audit at the end of Oct. I’ll let you know the results. :confused:

We originally had KPMG and when they sold out to BSI our auditor(s) left. I tried to contact BSI for a month and never got a response. When I didn't sign their new ageement I did receive a call. We went with AQSR and since we were TE their auditors came from the Windsor Ontario office.
We have been very pleased with AQSR.

ISO 9001 - SRI

ISO 14001 - ITS

I decline to comment on either, except to say that as with all Registrars, their Auditors cover a wide spectrum of knowledge, personality, and interpretation. Too bad they can't calibrate their Auditors! :vfunny:

The certifications we had
ISO 9001:2000 (Foil and Wheel Plant including Marketing Offices)
ISO 14001
ISO/TS 16949:2002 For Alloy Wheel Manufacturing including Marketing offices
and Now ISO/TS 16949:2002 for Radiator Foil including its marketing offices.

All are done by RWTUV. Simply The Best!!!!!

SRI no real problems, my only comment is that I wish auditors would learn to discriminate the differences between raw commodities and rocket science, lol

I've worked with ABS in the past, have the same comment about them.

Both are very good at getting back with you if you have questions.

We have used TUV- yuck would never recommend them to anyone and KEMA who has been fantastic. NSF-ISR is very good as well, if you are a small company looking for a smaller Registrar to serve you try DLS Qulaity Technologies is Syracuse New York.

We, like Randy, were with KPMG when they were bought by BSI. We stayed with BSI for both QS/TS and ISO14001 and have not encountered any problems. Our TS auditor has been on both sides of the fence (automotive) and is very good at what he does - no, he doesn't let us get away with much of anything!! In past lives/companies we used DNV and SRI, neither of which I had any complaints.

At a previous employer I used LRQA and was pleased with some of the auditors. Some were lacking professionalism.

I am in the process of selecting the Registrar for my new company and have narrowed it down to the following:

BSI
QMI
AQA

Any recommendations?

I've worked with Perry Johnson, Entella, Intertek and currently NSF-ISR.

I've worked with NSF for three years now - by far my favorite. Excellent technical assistance, quick responses from the account exec, no hidden costs or price increases, etc. I've only had the one auditor for this whole time, so I cannot comment on the consistency in interpretations between their auditors, but our auditor is awesome.

I've worked with Perry Johnson, Entella, Intertek and currently NSF-ISR.

I've worked with NSF for three years now - by far my favorite. Excellent technical assistance, quick responses from the account exec, no hidden costs or price increases, etc. I've only had the one auditor for this whole time, so I cannot comment on the consistency in interpretations between their auditors, but our auditor is awesome. NSF has recently changed or are now enforcing a rule that was not enforced(?). Now at one of you suveillance audits of your 3 year period a new auditor must be brought in for a fresh look.

I likewise have used NSF for both my current employer and my previous one and I think they've done a great job.

My current auditor said the same thing about changing auditors every three years. Since I'm only on the second year here at this current location I guess I'll have to wait and see.

NSF has recently changed or are now enforcing a rule that was not enforced(?). Now at one of you suveillance audits of your 3 year period a new auditor must be brought in for a fresh look.

Our auditor informed us of that also. I didn't think about it at the time to ask - but I just now did - We have had the same auditor for three years now for ISO9002:1994 - but we were just recommended for registration this past September to ISO9001:2000 (haven't even rec'd the certificate yet). Does my three years start with the registration to the new standard?

At a previous employer I used LRQA and was pleased with some of the auditors. Some were lacking professionalism.

I am in the process of selecting the Registrar for my new company and have narrowed it down to the following:

BSI
QMI
AQA

Any recommendations?


Sure, off the top BSI. QMI and AQA have a pretty good reputation as do many others. One Registrar that I am pretty familiar with is EAQA USA and then there is DNV also. I'm particular to BSI and EAQA for personal reasons and due to my friendship with Sidney I always recommend DNV.

With my clients, I have directly worked with several of those mentioned.

A few comments:

Entela +++ Relatively consistent interpretations and audit process. Auditors have generally brought in good, relevant backgrounds for small to medium size auto parts makers -- they've been there. Large market share in US and reasonable reputation.

Entela --- Home office support has "dropped the ball" with recordkeeping at times. One example: mixing up site files of two sister companies. They are always apologetic but don't seem to be quick to get to the root cause. Also, on a few occasions auditors have confused Entela interpretations with the standard. (e.g. they have a procedure that requires a major to be written if there are over three minors in the same QS element (e.g. 4.2).

Overall -- OK to keep; would consider for future.

NSF/ISR +++ Have worked with several excellent lead auditors. HAve a practice of keeping lead auditors consistent. (as noted above, maybe too consistent?) But this has built effective relationships and the auditors are harder to "snow". They seem to place more authority with the lead auditor than others. If you have a good auditor, that's great. Sales office professional and responsive, too.

--- In one or two situations we had individual auditors who (though they had years of experience) didn't seem to be very quick at understanding "non traditional" companies (such as service companies.) Easy to solve in their system-- just get the right lead auditor. It is also unfortunate that for various reasons, some of their best auditors are choosing not to qualify for TS16949. Two different individual auditors I know have made business decisions to focus their future efforts on ISO only to avoid the cost and hassle of QS/TS/ Big 3 retraining and testing.

OVerall -- a keeper.

QMI -- Worked with them on one (large, multiplant) registration; their lead auditor was excellent and they were very price competitive. Had good reviews of the auditors who did the remote sites, too. But I don't have a lot of experience with them.

Some of my colleagues and friends report the following. This should be treated as second-hand or rumor mill only, but I offer it FWIW.

More favorable comments than negatives:

AQSR, Excalibur, BVQI, Smithers, DNV

More negative comments than positive:

Perry Johnson, UL, KPMG, ABS

Best regards,

Brad

I feel here in India the most popular CB are TUV (There are three TUV here), DNV, BVQI, UL, LRQA and now a days KPMG. But, I feel it depends upon the auditor also and not wholly on CB. In my case I have faced more than a dozen auditors all from TUV (RWTUV) but, I admit there was variation in auditor skill.
I used to share lot of information about CB. Especially in India, still audior audit clause by clause (old habit of 1994 version, element by element auditing). While all my experience with TS2 auditors is really classical. I have made an observation sheet in which i have mentioined even their wording also I shall post to you all, if you want to see. But I must admit that It was a good experience to have VAA (In RWTUV, they call value added auditing), They don't act as a policemen rather they perform audit with a single point in mind that after seeing basic mininmum requirement How I or we (Auditors) can assure the company that TS -18949 or ISO 9000 or ISO 14001 shall contribute to enhance bottom line.

Really wonderfull auding by RWTUV.

Manoj Mathur

We are using CWC Registrars located in Cincinnati. The fact that they were local, and very reasonably priced was a big factor in their favor, but additionally they are very professional, and helpful.

James

*** March 2004 - CWC is selling out to another registrar - I understand Terry is moving back to Britain ***

I used NQA-USA for my 9k94 registration. Started with them mostly because our sister company in Chester, England used NQA. During the quote process they were very clear, concise, and timely. The auditors knew our business (electronics mfg.) and the standard (no outlandish "registrar" interpretations). The Lead Auditor, Judge Lunt, did a thorough, efficient and personable job. Findings were fair, standard based, and accompanied by "I've seen other companies like yours do it this way" comments. They found all of the things that I knew were "dodgy". They did not generate findings just to generate findings. We asked for an RAB and UKAS cert. so we had a little extra processing time. The auditor did return for 1/2 day (without extra fees) because the UK office would not issue a UKAS cert because sufficient evidence of our field service/installation control had not been collected. We had retained a field tech at the home office to go through the process during the registration audit, who was very sad that he didn't get to play, but he was grinning from ear to ear during the clean up audit since field service had done a lot of (necessary) work to clean up their act. NQA highly recommended

Like several others here, we use UL as our registrar. We have been using their registration service since 1992. For the most part, they have decent auditors. As with any large company, they also have one or two bad eggs, and some shining stars - we have seen them all over the years - but most are decent auditors. Those who perform exceptionally well and provide us with the best value for our investment (not just to get the cert on the wall, but the ones who teach us - by finding things we overlooked), we ask them to come back again. What can I say, we are a glutton for Action Requests :vfunny: ... "thank you sir may I have another" :biglaugh: ... In reality, we have rarely had more than 5 Action Requests and several observations in any given assessment.

We have also had BVQI on-site to conduct an SA-8000 (http://www.cepaa.org/SA8000/SA8000.htm) assessment. We serve the cosmetic, automotive and industrial markets. This standard appears to mostly apply to the cosmetic and textile/clothing markets. Our customers are not forcing us to be registered with this SA-8000 standard yet, but we did have one customer who insisted that we at least have an SA-8000 Policy, SA-8000 Training, and go through an SA-8000 Assessment. It's now part of our new employee orientation, we still have the requisite postings throught our facility, and our SA-8000 policy is available for any employee.

Does anyone have any experience with DNV (Det Norske Veritas)? If so, feedback would be wonderful.

Thanks,

Mshell :bigwave:

We have switched in the last year or so to VCA of North America. Soild organization, established years ago by the UK goverment. A world of improvement from our last regisrtar (that recently has been in the news alot and on this message board alot).

VCA has done an excellent job for us, just passed our TS2 audit at the end of September.

Our experience with them has been high class.

Does anyone have any experience with DNV (Det Norske Veritas)? If so, feedback would be wonderful.

Thanks,

Mshell :bigwave:

At a previous employer we used DNV. I really had no problems with the auditor we had, and the home office (as I recall it was in Texas) was very responsive to our needs (although they were a little difficult to get a hold of at times).

Not necessarily a recommendation, but my experience to date.:bigwave:

Does anyone have any experience with DNV (Det Norske Veritas)?
Sidney Vianna who is with DNV visits regularly. As such, DNV listens to, and responds to, those in these forums. Feedback to me has been DNV is well viewed by customers. Considering Sidney's participation here, I feel DNV is a significant registrar which one should consider in any decision.

Seeking recommendations. :thedeal: Which do you know and can or cannot recommend and why?
Marc,

I've been using Global Registrars out of Pittsburg. I have been very pleased with their service. Joe Fabian goes out of his way to accomadate schedules. He has multiple clients in the Chicago area and schedules us for the same time to reduce travel expenses. I have found his auditors to be knowledgable and proffesional.
We originally selected them based on a recomendation our owner received from a friend of his.

CarolX

Seeking recommendations. :thedeal: Which do you know and can or cannot recommend and why?

Sidney Vianna who is with DNV visits regularly. As such, DNV listens to, and responds to, those in these forums. Feedback to me has been DNV is well viewed by customers. Considering Sidney's participation here, I feel DNV is a significant registrar which one should consider in any decision.

Thanks, Marc and others. :o

Mshell

The registrar/organization relationship is always very dependent on the actual auditor. The "chemistry" factor is very important. So, irrespective of which registrar you chose, I strongly suggest that you try to interview the potential local auditors that would be assigned to your organization. At least a phone interview if s/he is not available to pay you a formal visit. On top of that, the Registrar admin/support functions can be very critical too. I can tell you that, if you were to chose DNV, you would be treated professionally, with courtesy and we are genuinely interested in making our assessments a value added exercise to your organization. We are not the ISO my-way-or-the-highway cops, nor we rubber stamp any system.

Thanks for considering DNV

Sidney,

Thanks for the response. Your organization is among the four that we are considering. I have passed the information on to others in our organization for review and input. We should be beginning the interview phase shortly.

Thanks again,

mshell

Also see:

http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=1809
and
http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4338

I used NQA-USA for my 9k94 registration. Started with them mostly because our sister company in Chester, England used NQA. During the quote process they were very clear, concise, and timely. The auditors knew our business (electronics mfg.) and the standard (no outlandish "registrar" interpretations). The Lead Auditor, Judge Lunt, did a thorough, efficient and personable job. Findings were fair, standard based, and accompanied by "I've seen other companies like yours do it this way" comments. They found all of the things that I knew were "dodgy". They did not generate findings just to generate findings. We asked for an RAB and UKAS cert. so we had a little extra processing time. The auditor did return for 1/2 day (without extra fees) because the UK office would not issue a UKAS cert because sufficient evidence of our field service/installation control had not been collected. We had retained a field tech at the home office to go through the process during the registration audit, who was very sad that he didn't get to play, but he was grinning from ear to ear during the clean up audit since field service had done a lot of (necessary) work to clean up their act. NQA highly recommended

Our current registrar just informed me that they are now a part of NQA-USA.

Our current registrar just informed me that they are now a part of NQA-USA.May I ask who is your current registrar?

May I ask who is your current registrar?

But WADR Sidney, I should not tell. I am pleased with our current registrar and hopeful that under the NQA-USA umbrella our current teaming with registrar/auditors continues to grow and prosper.

I had originally posted in this thread hoping to get some objective input about NQA-USA. :rolleyes:

Fare winds to you and DNV. :)

But WADR Sidney, I should not tell. I am pleased with our current registrar and hopeful that under the NQA-USA umbrella our current teaming with registrar/auditors continues to grow and prosper.

I had originally posted in this thread hoping to get some objective input about NQA-USA. :rolleyes:

Fare winds to you and DNV. :)Don, I am not familiar with the WADR acronym. Never mind. A couple of Google searches answered my question. Had never seen an ISO 9001 certificate with a bird before. But since you made me search, I must say: Based on your scope of certification, I would expect your Registrar to have EAC Code 21 in their scope of accreditation. EAC Code 21 is Aerospace.
Best wishes to you and your organization too.

WADR= With All Do Respect?

Many different comments. One must pick a registrar based on several factors including the maturity level of your QMS and what your organization hopes to accomplish by have a QMS that is in compliance with an applicable standard. It all boils down to the auditor, make that selection with great care. I believe that we have some auditors that have worked for different registrars and maybe they can share some wisdom on this?

I have deleted my inappropriate remarks/comments regarding DNV. Correction stated below:
We had an unfortunate not-so-good experience with DNV. But that was in 1997-1998.
We hired UL, who has been absolutely the best, fairest, easiest to work with, friendliest, etc., etc., etc.!!!!!!! No Kidding. My employer has been with UL since 1998 and we'd go with them all over again. They're #1 in our opinion. UL really works to make us happy - whatever we need. :applause: :applause: :applause:

My copied comments in other posts should be disregarded by everyone. It is my wish that my copied comments be deleted by other posters.

Registrars:

Hmmmm... very interesting.
What I have heard about others:

1) DNV - reputable, cooperative, good choice.
2) UL - Stay away. The most consistent complaint that I have heard (especially with regard to ISO) is that their auditors "read" more into the Standard than is there. They are narrowminded and less flexible than others when interpreting what is REQUIRED.

ALM
Re: #1 - I disagree 100%. They are NOT cooperative at all or flexible and not a good choice. They read way too much into the standard. Their auditors were very hard to work with. We dropped them like a hot potato! Actually, we fired them! Yanked the carpet out from underneath....:lol:
Re: #2 - You opinion is way off. UL is absolutely the best, fairest, easiest to work with, friendliest, etc., etc., etc.!!!!!!! No Kidding. My employer has been with UL since 1998 and we'd go with them all over again. They're #1 in our opinion. UL really works to make us happy - whatever we need. :applause: :applause: :applause:I wonder if this was a case of the same contract auditor working for two different registrars?:D

I wonder if this was a case of the same contract auditor working for two different registrars?:D


Good point.

When I was looking at UL they had their own auditors, not contracted auditors. But maybe that has changed.

Good point.

When I was looking at UL they had their own auditors, not contracted auditors. But maybe that has changed.

Coury Ferguson

Like I said, we have had UL for our registrar since 1998. From my first-hand experience, they have both types of auditors. Only 1 problem with a contracted auditor and he is not allowed on-site anymore. He did not do adequate auditing. I prefer not to go into details.

Well, your post was in 1999...things have changed since then...
Re: #1 - I disagree 100%. They are NOT cooperative at all or flexible and not a good choice. They read way too much into the standard. Their auditors were very hard to work with. We dropped them like a hot potato! Actually, we fired them! Yanked the carpet out from underneath....:lol:
Lee, I think you should be a little more careful with your choice of words. It is one thing for you to say that you felt that DNV WAS not cooperative or flexible when dealing with you. That was your experience, and you are most certainly entitled to express it.

But for you to state in broad terms that DNV IS not cooperative or flexible, because of you past single and negative experience with DNV, is a whole different story.

In this highly competitive certification sector, we would not be a leading registrar (both domestically and internationally) if our services were as bad as you are trying to portray.

Once again, I stress that you are most definitely entitled to your opinion about DNV and express your experience, but for you to make broad defamatory statements, based on a single experience which took place almost a decade ago is inappropriate, imo.

WADR= With All Do Respect?


Coury Ferguson\
probably
Acronym = Meaning
WADR = With All Due Respect note spelling and meaning of "due"

I have restated my comments in post #98. Everyone reading my comments that were copied thereafter should disregard those comments. They were an opinion of an experience in 1997-1998 timeframe. Not even appropriate nowadays. :( I would have deleted my post # 98 completely, but my comments have been copied and re-posted. Ugh.

I also deleted my post between 102 and 103, but incorrectly referred to post 105 - should be this one, 104.

Thanks,
Lee

Water under the bridge, Lee. No hard feelings.
:bighug:

I have restated my comments in post #98. Everyone reading my comments that were copied thereafter should disregard those comments. They were an opinion of an experience in 1997-1998 timeframe. Not even appropriate nowadays. :( I would have deleted my post # 98 completely, but my comments have been copied and re-posted. Ugh.

I also deleted my post between 102 and 103, but incorrectly referred to post 105 - should be this one, 104.

Thanks,
LeeLee, your a pushover.:lmao:

Lee, your a pushover.:lmao:

Yeah, yeah, yeah.:o

Since we are talking about specific auditors, let me share my experience with one in particular.

We just finished (yesterday) a surveillance audit by CICS, out of England. While there were no nonconformances written up, we did find some things to work on that I had not thought of. Some of these might be an Opportunity for Improvement (OFI) in the report, but some won't be written up because they really are not ISO related. Does that make them less valuable? Heck no.

Anyway, while we had a rocky start with them, and with ISO 9002, more than 10 years ago, I very highly recommend CICS. They are not one of the "big guys", but we are not a big company either, and I happen to think we do things well. JMHO.

On the plus side, I have used AQSR for 2 different companies (TS16949 and QS9000) and have been quite pleased with the auditors as well as the company's responsiveness. The auditors are well versed in the standards and have appropriate backgrounds to audit effectively.

For the negatives, RWTUV was our registrar for QS9000 and they basically were after a check. We gained no value from their audits.

In the middle, we currently have Perry Johnson for our registrar for ISO 14001. I am pleased with the auditors but not with the company itself due to lack of follow up and poor timeliness.

Hello everyone,

I was just wondering if there were any new comments since 2006? We are currently looking at:

BSI
LRQA
DNV
Intertek

Any thoughts? I believe them all to be very good - I just can't seem to narrow them down any further!!! :confused: :biglaugh:
Thanks!

As I know Bsi and Dnv is good.And my company's registrar is Dnv

I recommend SAI Global. We have been with them for about 4 years and have received good value for our investment.

Hello everyone,

I was just wondering if there were any new comments since 2006? We are currently looking at:

BSI
LRQA
DNV
Intertek

Any thoughts? I believe them all to be very good - I just can't seem to narrow them down any further!!! :confused: :biglaugh:
Thanks!

I work for two firms I believe to be very good - DQS USA and Smithers Quality Assessments. You will find them to provide very good service at good pricing.

We have been using QMI as our registrar since 1998 when we upgraded from ISO 9002:1994 to QS-9000:1998. Have always had good things to say about them, I believe the auditors we had were both knowledgable and fair.

And right on the heels of both a successful upgrade to ISO/TS, and a very successful surveillance audit, the owner decided to switch us to SRI (I'm not privy to the reasoning behind this but I don't think it has much/anything to do with QMI as our sister company is remaining with them). Who I know nothing about. But our first audit with them is in early February 2008 so we'll see how that goes I guess.

My clients have recently had very satisfactory audits with QMI, BSI and TRC. At one time I recommended InterTek almost exclusively, but they have undergone a lot of changes over the past two years that have negatively impacted their ability to deliver the best auditors, while their prices have continued to increase... Some of the worst I've encountered are Perry Johnson and BVQI. Whenever I walk into a new client and they are a disaster area, without fail, I find PJ or BVQI is their registrar. Of course, I try to rectify that ASAP.

For 17025, I still recommend A2LA.

Our company is currently 9001 registered and we're using NQA (National Quality Assurance) but we are in the process of going after 13485 and are shopping around for Registrars. I've got quotes from NSAI, LRQA, and TUV and I'm looking for some feedback on the non-monetary side of the decision. Any help/ feedback is greatly appreciated...
Thanks,

I've had good luck with SAI Global. I've been audited by them at 2 different companies where I was QMR at each. Always thought they treated me fair. Will use them again as I prepare another company.

:applause:

I started using QSR out of VA ealier this year. My company transferred our ISO 9001:2000 certifications from an existing registrar and used these folks for our RC14001 certification. They have been great!

Our company is currently 9001 registered and we're using NQA (National Quality Assurance) but we are in the process of going after 13485 and are shopping around for Registrars. I've got quotes from NSAI, LRQA, and TUV and I'm looking for some feedback on the non-monetary side of the decision. Any help/ feedback is greatly appreciated...
Thanks,

We use TUV and their auditors are courteous and helpful. The only minor problems we've had were with scheduling. ;)

Thanks for the feedback, I used to work for a company that used TUV and forthe most part we had worthwhile audits. My only problem with TUV is that they seem to be very bureaucratic as I had to get my 9001 quote from a different group that I got the 13485 quote. It's taken over a month to get a quote...
I just want to make sure that we don't use price as the only gage for our decision.

Our company is currently 9001 registered and we're using NQA (National Quality Assurance) but we are in the process of going after 13485 and are shopping around for Registrars. I've got quotes from NSAI, LRQA, and TUV and I'm looking for some feedback on the non-monetary side of the decision. Any help/ feedback is greatly appreciated...
Thanks,

One of the registrars I am with does 13485 - DQS or DQS USA, depending on which side of the Atlantic Ocean you are located on. They are a very proactive registrar and we focus on providing value added (non-bureaucratic) audits.

Yesterday we just completed our first audit with SRI. The auditors themselves were both thorough (or as thorough as one can be auditing an entire QMS in 1.5 days) and seemed to know what they were doing. We came away with 9 nonconformances.

Three were in the "D'OH!" category where something that normally was done like clockwork didn't get done (likely due to the high volume of management changeover last year). Easy fixes, we just need to put some controls in place to make sure that personnel changeover doesn't let something fall through the cracks.

Most were in the "uh-oh" category where either we knew we had a weakness and needs some minor to major work.

One was in the "Huh?" category where we got a nonconformance to the AIAG MSA Manual, which I didn't think was normative to TS-2. Still trying to figure that one out.

...One was in the "Huh?" category where we got a nonconformance to the AIAG MSA Manual, which I didn't think was normative to TS-2. Still trying to figure that one out.

Good question. The manuals themselves are not normative, but the Big 3 TS Customer Specifics make them mandatory. A better practice might be for auditors to cite the clause in the TS standard, and reference the specific requirement described in the MSA book.

But if I'm a direct supplier to a Big 3 customer (and therefore do not have to subscribe to their CSR's) then it shouldn't be normative to me, right?

The actual nonconformance was over bias, linearity and stability studies (we've never used them, just Gage R+R), and I'm not going to complain about the nonconformance because I'm sure that the studies are useful and we probably should be doing them. Now it looks like I get to make another trip up to AIAG for some MSA training. Southfield, joy.

(And I imagine that the MSA book was normative under QS-3, so we should have been doing them and if that's the case it's a wonder we never got hit on it during one of the twice a year audits from 1998-2006.)

[QUOTE]But if I'm a direct supplier to a Big 3 customer (and therefore do not have to subscribe to their CSR's) then it shouldn't be normative to me, right?

I think you mean to say you are a tier 2? If so, your point might be correct, but most tier 1's actually require their suppliers to do them as well.



The actual nonconformance was over bias, linearity and stability studies (we've never used them, just Gage R+R), and I'm not going to complain about the nonconformance because I'm sure that the studies are useful and we probably should be doing them. Now it looks like I get to make another trip up to AIAG for some MSA training. Southfield, joy.

(And I imagine that the MSA book was normative under QS-3, so we should have been doing them and if that's the case it's a wonder we never got hit on it during one of the twice a year audits from 1998-2006.)


Yes, these were required for years under QS. However, the blue books weren't normative, the studies requirement came out of the QS standard and interpretations.

Yes they are useful, and if you use programs like GageTrak and GagePak, the studies can be executed automatically from the same data entered for Gage R&R.

Don't think you need to do training for these, if you already know how to do Gage R&R. Check your software.

One of the registrars I am with does 13485 - DQS or DQS USA, depending on which side of the Atlantic Ocean you are located on. They are a very proactive registrar and we focus on providing value added (non-bureaucratic) audits.
I'm sure they're great Helmut. Hardly an unbiased opinion, though! :lol:

[quote=Barahir;234997]
I think you mean to say you are a tier 2? If so, your point might be correct,