Reason to be hopeful? Or not? Can the same minds re-engineer the archaic accreditation and certification processes, presently deployed?

From http://www.qualitydigest.com

Improving Certification
Output matters. That was the overriding message at the March meetings of the International Accreditation Forum's technical and executive committees. Finding ways to improve accreditation body (AB) and certification body (CB) accountability was a major topic of discussion at the event, and measuring AB and CB effectiveness through an examination of their registered clients' product output is a way of verifying this effectiveness, reported several meeting participants.

A paper produced by the IAF technical committee's (TC) Reengineering Accreditation Task Group calls for better assessment of the competency of AB assessors, the improved verification of AB impartiality, improved criteria for audit preparation and reports, and more complete AB surveillance audits of certification bodies. The paper will be discussed at the IAF's next meeting in Sydney, Australia, planned for October.

Several TC members acknowledged that shoddy products shipped by certified companies have the potential to erode the value of accredited certification. The problem lies with unaccredited certification companies and inexperienced auditors who are driven more by money than by the quest for quality improvement.

"The ultimate accreditation is from the client's customers," says Nigel Croft, convener of ISO/TC 176, the technical committee responsible for developing the ISO 9000 series of standards and guidance documents. "Those clients are the ones paying the bills for the good and the bad, and they are the ones we need to pay attention to."

The discussion is part of an ongoing effort by the IAF to increase the value of accredited certification to management system standards. Long-term action items planned by the organization include:
• Developing methods to measure the quality of certified organizations' product output
• Collecting and processing information from second-party audits, regulator audits and media accounts of certified organizations
• Pushing for the evolution of the relationship between ABs and CBs into stricter cooperation and partnership
• Substantially tightening the requirements for obtaining and maintaining accreditation, especially with regard to the verification of the implementation of improved rules
• Strongly regulating price competition

"A substantial redesign of the accreditation and certification processes… cannot be based only on defining better rules, but implies a major cultural and political change," says Lorenzo Thione, convener of the Reengineering Accreditation committee. "This cannot be achieved without the consciousness and cooperation of all the interested parties."

The larger IAF meeting, held March 24-30 in San Francisco, included daylong breakout sessions for several other of the TC's work groups, including the ISO 20000 work group, which continued its work on revising and reviewing the service-sector standard; the ISO 14065 work group, which is developing an international standard for greenhouse gas measurement and reduction; and the ISO 9000 advisory group, which discussed the ongoing revisions of ISO 9001 and ISO 9004.
The TC agreed to form several new work groups, as requested by industry representatives. The new work groups will explore accreditation and standardization in the product-certification sector, and a global accreditation program for ISO 13485 (which relates to medical devices), among others.

The weeklong conference--hosted by the ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB)--also featured ANAB's first Industry Day. The event featured presentations from industry sector representatives who discussed ways in which accreditation and certification can be improved to benefit them. Joe Bransky, General Motors' representative to the International Automotive Oversight Bureau, gave a particularly pointed address, urging the IAF to require more accountability from accreditation bodies, and automotive suppliers to be more transparent with their supply chain challenges. He also noted that certification bodies haven't sufficiently developed auditor competencies, and reported the need for more effective witness auditing.

"There should be no secrets," Bransky says. "If we are serious about improvement, we need to put all the cards on the table and say where we really are."

Also at Industry Day, the technical committee agreed to form an end-user advisory group, which will provide information to the TC about how IAF decisions affect certification among end-users. A representative from the advisory group will also be a member of the TC.

Mr. Nigel Croft delivered this presentation (http://www.apcer.pt/downloads/forum_lisboa/APCER_Nigel_Croft_Painel_1.pdf) almost 3 years ago on the future of certification. It talks about the stratification of organizations, AB's, CB's, consultants and auditors along the lines of adding value. Makes for interesting reading IMO.

Mr. Croft is unrelentless in his drive to bring credibility back to the accredited certification process.

Good find Sidney. I am happy to read this, it's way overdue for some improvement, however they don't seem to recognize the legacy that the previous version of ISO 9000 left us, which has its effects in registrations, auditor behaviour etc. Often, due to unrealistic timescales being set for supplier to get registered, organizations have been paniced into registration and gone with the 'easy option'. Having said that, I wish the team well on their endeavor.

I'm a little sceptical, however, regarding Mr. Bransky's comments. His organization, along with the other OEM's have played 'beat up the registrar' through their purchasing 'power' (which they apply unthinkingly to all suppliers) and have driven down the prices charged. So, for the IAF/IATF to lay the blame at registrars' auditors for doing things for money is cynical at best and very hypocritical.

Once again, he's advocating more auditing by AB's of CB's as a way of 'inspecting in quality'. He already knows that audits don't fix a broken process, but I guess he's trying to feed the AIAG/IATF coffers............

What ever happened to actually fixing the process?

Good find Sidney. I am happy to read this, it's way overdue for some improvement, however they don't seem to recognize the legacy that the previous version of ISO 9000 left us, which has its effects in registrations, auditor behaviour etc. Often, due to unrealistic timescales being set for supplier to get registered, organizations have been paniced into registration and gone with the 'easy option'. Having said that, I wish the team well on their endeavor.

I'm a little sceptical, however, regarding Mr. Bransky's comments. His organization, along with the other OEM's have played 'beat up the registrar' through their purchasing 'power' (which they apply unthinkingly to all suppliers) and have driven down the prices charged. So, for the IAF/IATF to lay the blame at registrars' auditors for doing things for money is cynical at best and very hypocritical.

Once again, he's advocating more auditing by AB's of CB's as a way of 'inspecting in quality'. He already knows that audits don't fix a broken process, but I guess he's trying to feed the AIAG/IATF coffers............

What ever happened to actually fixing the process?


I respectfully disagree with Mr. AndyN. Suggesting that Mr. Joe Bransky is "trying to feed the AIAG/IATF coffers...." does not contribute to a meaningful dialogue on how to improve the Accreditation/Registration/Certification process.

Reason to be hopeful? Or not? Can the same minds re-engineer the archaic accreditation and certification processes, presently deployed?

That is indeed the question. I wish Mr. Bransky could change some of the destructive procurement processes at GM, which often undermine the very quality improvements we auditors are trying to drive.

I don't understand the statementThe problem lies with unaccredited certification companies and inexperienced auditors who are driven more by money than by the quest for quality improvement.in the context of this article. While unaccredited certification presents risks to the credibility of all involved, I believe that unaccredited certification is a minuscule percentage of the certification market.

My long term contention is that the Accreditation Bodies and Certification Bodies have to find ways to demonstrate that they bring value to the end users. And that requires performance comparisons. And that requires data that most certified organizations are not capable nor willing to collect, much less share. A real and serious re-engineering of the accredited certification process would affect not only the AB's and CB's, but also the certified organizations. And that, will be a tough sell.

And yet, another very interesting paper.:read:

And yet, another very interesting paper.:read:


Some interesting points. Particularly, learning from automotive, etc. The TS auditor scheme, though it has many problems, generally results in a better grade of auditors. Maybe there is something to that?

Some interesting points. Particularly, learning from automotive, etc. The biggest lesson that the AB's can learn from the Automotive Sector is the fact that they were blatantly bypassed for the TS certification program. The Automotive OEMs got fed up with the accreditation process dysfunctions experienced during the QS-9000 experiment. I hope the AB's can make the structural and cultural changes to inspire more confidence in their processes. In my personal opinion, we need a revolutionary change, rather than an evolutionary one. I doubt we will see a revolution.

The biggest lesson that the AB's can learn from the Automotive Sector is the fact that they were blatantly bypassed for the TS certification program. The Automotive OEMs got fed up with the accreditation process dysfunctions experienced during the QS-9000 experiment. I hope the AB's can make the structural and cultural changes to inspire more confidence in their processes. In my personal opinion, we need a revolutionary change, rather than an evolutionary one. I doubt we will see a revolution.

Hi Sidney,

Thank you for your great observations and valuable comments.

Yes, the IATF decided to take the "bull by the horns" themselves.

But I am curious; in your opinion, what would be the Top Three changes that the Accreditation Bodies should implement to improve the credibility of the
(1) the AB's themselves and (2) the Certification Bodies?

What do other Covers suggest?

But I am curious; in your opinion, what would be the Top Three changes that the Accreditation Bodies should implement to improve the credibility of the (1) the AB's themselves and (2) the Certification Bodies?The AB’s have to realize that they need to be accountable to the users of accredited management system certification. To that effect, they need to engage themselves with transparency when suppliers certified under their accredited scheme are caught with obvious and blatant low performing systems. They need to make the feedback and complaint process much more user friendly and transparent. They need to depart from the bureaucratic mind-set they have at present and welcome user feedback. They need to educate Industry and Society at large about how accreditation brings confidence to the process.

They have to improve tremendously the competence of their own personnel. Just like we have too many incompetent auditors working for Certification Bodies, there are AB auditors out there that have no idea of the damage they inflict without any payback in terms of credibility and confidence on the performance of the CB’s.

They need to influence the revision of documents such as ISO/IEC 17021 and 19011 to change dramatically the competence requirements and qualifications expected from management system auditors. They need to force the CB’s to understand the meaning of the word MANAGEMENT in Management System Standards. And perform audits accordingly. Moronic and gutless auditors have to be filtered out of the system.

But the biggest problem is the cultural mismatch. Many of the decision makers in this process don’t have the intellectual ability to think out of the box they have created. So, we end up having “patches” that attempt to hide structural problems.

As you can tell, I don’t believe we will find easy, quick solutions. But the current CEO of ANAB will be retiring later this year. They are seeking a replacement….:cool:

ABs, CBs, value addition through accreditated certificates, issue of making money through unaccreditated certificates, system dilution.... nice to hear that these issues have opened up at least for discussion.

What happens when one of the largest and oldest multi - accreditated CB in India is discovered to be issuing unaccreditated cerificates? Nothing. Some irritated competitors think of complaining to NABCB - the Indian AB. They are promptly told, dont expect any action. The AB is just forming. These people are founder members. Anyway, they have not misused our accreditation.

Well, they have not misused any accreditation! They just havent used any!!

Why did they do that? Because they didnt have any accreditation for that particular scope. And they couldnt twist and tweak the scope to fit it into something else. If they could do it, they would have.

Out of the box thinking? Theres plenty of it. Only its going in the wrong direction. It is also dragging everything down with it.

IAOB tried to bypass the ABs. It was a good message. But the message is lost. IAOB managed to do no better controlling of the process. How many cases do we know of people having a QS certification but failing to graduate to TS? There was a tight control on auditor quality to begin with. But as the time pressure built up, all strings were loosened and now we havee people who didnt have a scope to audit automotive as ISO lead auditors romping around as TS lead auditors.

The revolution is unlikely to come unless ISO / IAF / CBs all come together and scrap all existing certifications on a cut off date and ask all and sundry to requalify for a fresh certification under a fresh control regime with freshly qualified ABs, freshly qualified CBs, and freshly qualified auditors.

Seems unlikely.

The evolution would come too slowly for our lifetime. ISO certification would lose its relevance. It will qualify as a paper on the wall that serves as a single entry visa to any purchase office. Period.

This is a global phenomenon. unfortunately a change in the ANAB top brass wont suffice to bring around a major revolution.

Some good news.

The much maligned (by me, who else!) NABCB - our Indian AB has suspended accreditation of two CBs. Reaccreditation decision is withheld for one CB. One more CB has 'voluntarily' suspended accreditation - with advice not to resume without clearance from NABCB (a sort of 'honorary' exit?):whip:

As the McDonald's catch phrase here goes - I'm loving it!!:naughty:

The much maligned (by me, who else!) NABCB - our Indian AB has suspended accreditation of two CBs. Reaccreditation decision is withheld for one CB. One more CB has 'voluntarily' suspended accreditation - with advice not to resume without clearance from NABCB (a sort of 'honorary' exit?)The information is available @ http://www.qcin.org/html/nabcb/nabcb_reg_bod.php
And, for those who like to see more transparency in the process, the new ANAB online directory of accredited CBs makes more difficult to find out the status of CB accreditation. For example, a CB has voluntarily suspended their AS9100 accreditation recently, but to find that information, one has to dig for it.

From http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/public/224

we have access to some material used during some recent IAF Industry days. As usual, Mr. Croft's presentation seems to be the most interesting one.


In March 2007 IAF held its first ever Industry Day which was convened to enable users of accredited third party certification to discuss with IAF their problems and their successes. This unprecedented forum debated whether improvements were necessary to make the accredited certification system more relevant to the changing needs and expectations of industry. Hosted by the ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB) and welcomed by Bob King, President of ANAB, the forum heard presentations from a range of sectors covering aerospace, automotive, chemicals, information technology, medical devices, telecommunications and petroleum. It was generally acknowledged by most participants that user expectations had changed since the advent of certification some twenty years ago, and rather than just assessing the compliance of the client's management system there was now a recognition of the need to consider its effectiveness, as "output does matter".
To coincide with meetings of the IAF Executive, the China National Accreditation Service (CNAS) and IAF hosted the second Industry Day in early June in Beijing. Opened by Mr Li Changjiang, the Minister of the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the Peoples' Republic of China (AQSIQ), this forum was strongly supported by both the Government of the PRC, industry representatives and the Certification Bodies. Attendees received presentations on the effectiveness and expectations of quality and environmental management systems in the electrical appliance, automotive and computer manufacturing industries.
Planning is currently underway for a third Industry Day which is expected to be held in Europe around November, possibly in Brussels to enable direct interaction with the European Commission. Further to this, it is intended that participants at the Industry Day Forums will be invited to become members of the new IAF End-user Advisory Committee with the aim of helping IAF to better develop future accreditation criteria to meet the expected outcomes of industry and their customers.


IAF-ANAB Industry Day Presentations - 28 March 2007, San Francisco, USA

1. ISO 9000 Advisory Group's Preception of Permuatations of Good and Bad Performance (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/485743.Croft_ID.pdf)- Dr Nigel Croft, Co-chair ISO 9000 Advisory Group & ISO/TC 176 Liaison to IAF
2. International Automotive Task Force (IATF) Approaches IAF Should Consider (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/816653.Bransky_ID.pdf)- Joseph Bransky, General Motors representative, International Automotive Oversight Bureau
3. Aerospace Supplier Expectations (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/720450.Lee_ID.pdf)- Tim Lee, Chair, Americas Aerospace Quality Group RMC
4. Seeking Approaches for Success; Customers, Concerns and Corrective Action (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/626700.Shah_ID.pdf)- Usha Shah, Motorola (QuEST Forum representative)
5. Information Technology Expectations (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/981643.Sarti_ID.pdf)- Wanda Sarti, ISO Systems Management Standards Program Manager, IBM Corporate
6. Lanxcess and the American Chemistry Council (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/388881.Dearth_ID.pdf)- Randall Dearth, President and CEO, Lanxcess Corp.
7. Petrobras's Experience on the Effectiveness of Accredited ISO 9001 Certification (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/463904.Nascimento_ID.pdf)- Luis Carlos Nascimento, Consoltor de Negocio, Petrobras
8. ENEL Contribution to the Improvement of the Italian Certification System (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/816623.Reda_ID.pdf)- Carmine Reda, ENEL S.p.A



IAF-CNAS China Day Presentations - 9 June 2007, Beijing, China

1. Speakers Biographical Summaries (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/878137.1_IAF-CNAS_China_Day_-_Speakers_Bio_Summaries.pdf)
2. IAF Strategic Plan to Identify and Achieve Expectations of Users of Certified Organizations (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/883733.2_IAF_strategic_plan_to_identify_and_achieve_expectations.pdf)- Dr. Thomas Facklam, Chair, IAF
3. Administration and Accreditation Approach for Management System Certification in China (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/451551.3_Administration_and_accreditation_approach_for_MS_certification_in_China.pdf)- Mr. Sun Dawei, Chief Administrator, Certification and Accreditation Administration of PRC (CNCA)
4. Transcend ISO 9000 and Persue Excellent Operation (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/807364.4_Haier_Group_Company_-_Transcend_ISO9000,_and_pursue_excellent_operation.pdf)- Mr Cao Chunhua, Vice President, Haier Group Company
5. Performance and Expectations of Global Auto Quality System Certification (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/213788.5_Shanghai_Automotive_Industry_Corporation_-_Performance_and_expectations_of_global_auto_quality_system_certification.pdf)- Mr. Chen Yinda, Vice President, Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (Group)
6. Lenovo Group's Results and Expectations of Quality Management System Certification (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/852015.6_Lenovo_Groups_view_on_performance_and_expectations_of_quality_management_system_certification.pdf)- Mr. Du Jianhua, Vice President, Lenovo Group
7. Environmental Management System Certification and Environmental Protection (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/591477.7_Environmental_Management_System_Certification_and_Environmental_Protection.pdf)- Mr. Luo Yi, Deputy Director General, Department of Science, Technology and Standards, State Environmental Protection Administration of PRC (SEPA)
8. Implementing ISO14000 Environmental Standard & Encouraging SND's Sustainable Development - (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/581675.8_Implementing_ISO_14000_standards__encouraging_SNDs_sustainable_Development.pdf)Mr. Jiang Jianqing, Director, Environmental Protection Bureau, Suzhou National New & Hi-Tech Industrial Development Zone (SND)
9. Study on the Contribution of Certification to Economic Growth (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/966088.9_Study_on_the_contribution_of_certification_to_economic_growth_-_Survey_from_certified_companies_in_Guangdong_Province_of_China.pdf)- Survey From Certified Companies in Guangdong - Madame Tang Xiaofen, President, Shanghai Academy of Quality Management
10. Discussion of the Effectiveness of Certification (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/294917.10_Discussions_of_the_effectiveness_of_certification.pdf)- Mr. Lang Zhizheng, Counselor, State Council & Professor, Beijing Institute of Technology

Reason to be hopeful? Or not? Can the same minds re-engineer the archaic accreditation and certification processes, presently deployed?
From http://www.qualitydigest.com/currentmag/news.shtml#1 (dynamic link, subject to change next month)New link is http://www.qualitydigest.com/may07/news.shtml#1
What do other Covers suggest?Not many takers?

unfortunately a change in the ANAB top brass wont suffice to bring around a major revolution.I beg to differ. If we had someone knowledgeable, insightful, forceful, with enough charisma and wits as the top dog in one of the major AB's posts, such as ANAB, UKAS, RvA, etc... that individual could instigate a lot of change. The problem is the fact that most people selected for those positions have to be senior mature enough to satisfy the board. And, most people close to their retirement age don't want to rock the boat, since they need only a few more years to start enjoying their benefits.

I would nominate you and Randy. It wouldn't take long to shake up the system. ;-)

I would nominate you and Randy. It wouldn't take long to shake up the system. ;-)Thanks. Too bad there is no election for that position/job. Whomever they pick should be willing to make some serious waves, if they really want to promote accountability and confidence in the accreditation process. However, I suspect, the criteria for the selection includes being well groomed, very political, "suave", smooth, well connected, etc...;rock the boat is not in ANAB's agenda, I suspect. And the hard lessons are not learnt. Automotive already jumped ship. Telecom is not happy...

I beg to differ. If we had someone knowledgeable, insightful, forceful, with enough charisma and wits as the top dog in one of the major AB's posts, such as ANAB, UKAS, RvA, etc... that individual could instigate a lot of change. The problem is the fact that most people selected for those positions have to be senior mature enough to satisfy the board. And, most people close to their retirement age don't want to rock the boat, since they need only a few more years to start enjoying their benefits.

You said it. The big IF which carries an even bigger BUT.

Thats why I say that a revolution is unlikely and an evolution, if at all, will be too slow for our lifetimes.

I believe all and sundry of the covers will welcome a revolution, if it does come around by some miracle.

The presentations delivered during the 3rd IAF Industry Day are available below. I find specially interesting paper number 3 which indicates that Accreditation might become a regulated activity in Europe, in the near future.

IAF-TGA INDUSTRY DAY PRESENTATIONS - 5 MARCH 2008, BONN, GERMANY
1. Speakers Biographical Summaries (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/971479.BonnSpeakers_CVs.zip)
2. Intention of the IAF Industry Day & IAF Strategic Goals (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/693576.01--Thomas_Facklam-IAF_Strategy.pdf)- Dr. Thomas Facklam, IAF Chair
3. Regulator's view (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/779034.02--McMillan-European_Acc_Policy.pdf)- Jacques McMillan, European Commission
4. EA's approach to accreditation and accredited certification (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/161251.03--Thione-EA.pdf)- Dr Lorenzo Thione, EA Chair
5. Lawyer's view: Legal impact of accredited certification (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/876672.04--Laffineur-legal_aspects.pdf)- Jean-Luc Laffineur, Laffineur Law Firm
6. Small & Medium Enterprises (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/353036.05--Gourtsoyannis-NORMAPME-SMEs.pdf)- Loucas Gourtsoyannis, NORMAPME
7. Multi-national producer of heavy machinery (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/202034.06--Noth-John_Deere.pdf)- Robert W. Noth, Deere & Company
8. Multi sector industry: Semiconductors (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/199556.07--Stuehler-Infineon-Semiconductors.pdf)- Leo Stühler, Infineon
9. Highly regulated industry: Medical devices (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/305051.07--Stuehler-Infineon-Semiconductors.pdf)- Dr. Gerd Schmidt (Carlos Arglebe), Siemens Healthcare

10. A new certification approach in the Oil industry (http://www.compad.com.au/cms/iaf/workstation/upFiles/975586.09--John_Symonds-Exxon.pdf)- Dr. John Symonds, Exxon

The presentations delivered during the 3rd IAF Industry Day are available below. I find specially interesting paper number 3 which indicates that Accreditation might become a regulated activity in Europe, in the near future.

We need this here. Time to get confidence back in the accreditation process.

Stijloor.

Mr. Nigel Croft delivered this presentation[/URL] almost 3 years ago on the future of certification. It talks about the stratification of organizations, AB's, CB's, consultants and auditors along the lines of adding value. Makes for interesting reading IMO.

Mr. Croft is unrelentless in his drive to bring credibility back to the accredited certification process.
Dear Sydney
Any chance you still have that presentation on the Future of Certification by Nigel Croft?
That link doesn't seem to be working any more.
Thanks

No, I don't have a copy of that specific presentation any longer. However, collectively, the presentations available from the IAF Industry Days give us a glimpse of the future of the certification sector. That is, if you read in between the lines....;)

No, I don't have a copy of that specific presentation any longer. However, collectively, the presentations available from the IAF Industry Days give us a glimpse of the future of the certification sector. That is, if you read in between the lines....;)

A "corral the wagons" view but a view nonetheless.

How did I miss this first time around? :confused: Having met some of the great and the good of the certification and accreditation world over the last week I get the specific impression that the accreditation industry believes that added bureaucracy and standards are the answer to improving accredited certification. My idea (which I'm sure fell on stony ground) was that credible cerification requires credible accreditation and you won't get that until you get competent accreditation assessors working diligently in and among the certification bodies to make them weed out the auditors and CBs that let the whole process down.

.... and yes I have told "our" accreditation body that there are real opportunities to do that.

IMHO they don't have the people - or the will to bring them in.

My idea (which I'm sure fell on stony ground) was that credible cerification requires credible accreditation and you won't get that until you get competent accreditation assessors working diligently in and among the certification bodies to make them weed out the auditors and CBs that let the whole process down. And that is why I say (and have been saying for almost a decade), the users of the accredited certification sector are the only ones that can demand sustainable change. The people who created the accredited certification box we currently inhabit have shown over and over again they can not take us out of the present paradigm. As covered in this thread and elsewhere in this Forum, the Automotive Industry, tried an augmented accreditation process for the automotive QMS certification (QS-9000, TE supplement) and decided not pursue that route any longer. People should ask themselves why is that. Why TS-16949 certificates do not carry an accreditation mark.... IMHO they don't have the people - or the will to bring them in.People used to think that the higher you are in this chain, the better caliber of professionals you would find.

People used to think that the higher you are in this chain, the better caliber of professionals you would find.

Well, we know the answer to that don't we?;)

And that is why I say (and have been saying for almost a decade), the users of the accredited certification sector are the only ones that can demand sustainable change.It comes down to who you believe the users of certification are:

Certified companies
Their customers - the purchasers of products and services

Each of these groups has a different agenda. The customers may want certification to give them conforming product or services at lower cost. Playing devil's advocate - the certified companies may believe they can "do" quality on their own and want their certification at lowest cost / least hassle.
The people who created the accredited certification box we currently inhabit have shown over and over again they can not take us out of the present paradigm.As someone who was around when the first accreditation body evolved out of BSI the aim then (as now) was to keep the "cowboys" out. You have to judge if it has been successful. :notme:

So what do we do? All my ideas are documented here somewhere .... please feel free to search. Or I may summarize again!

As covered in this thread and elsewhere in this Forum, the Automotive Industry, tried an augmented accreditation process for the automotive QMS certification (QS-9000, TE supplement) and decided not pursue that route any longer.Again the rigour of the approval process for CBs and auditors wasn't good enough. I know of "approved" CBs and auditors I wouldn't give house room to.

Unfortunately I can also say the same for TS CBs / auditors. :mg:
People should ask themselves why is that. Why TS-16949 certificates do not carry an accreditation mark.... It is because the auto industry has chosen to take their supplier approval process out of the "standard" process - unfortunately - like many sector schemes - the evidence is it doesn't make it better or worse - just different!

People used to think that the higher you are in this chain, the better caliber of professionals you would find.If you follow that logic the president or prime minister of your country would be the most capable as well! :lmao:

IMHO the people at the "coal face" are the ones who deserve most respect - they are the ones making the difference for quality (or environment, health & safety etc., etc.).

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a certification manager not too long ago. He "fancied" joining an accreditation body so he could "tell" CBs what to do. :mg:

Guys, I think your comments and debate back and forth may apply to some of the ISO 9001 auditors. Some of the ISO guys I meet are somewhat limited in broad experience.

However, most of the TS guys i meet have a pretty good bit of depth and experience. Some registrars are better than others, and there are some weak folks out there, but many/most I meet provide good product. Better than the average ISO guys, on the whole.

It is because the auto industry has chosen to take their supplier approval process out of the "standard" process - unfortunately - like many sector schemes - the evidence is it doesn't make it better or worse - just different!If you pay attention to the presentations provided via the IATF on this subject, they are very happy with the TS 16949 certification process, vis a vis the significant quality improvement of the automotive supply chain. Their assessment, not mine. They seem to be happy with how the process is working in their sector.

If you pay attention to the presentations provided via the IATF on this subject, they are very happy with the TS 16949 certification process, vis a vis the significant quality improvement of the automotive supply chain. Their assessment, not mine. They seem to be happy with how the process is working in their sector.


I was thinking about automotive and other industries just a few days ago. Instead of my usual rants, I was thinking of how much better automotive is, compared to other industries. They really have accomplished a lot, inspite of all the negatives we discuss here on the Forum.

It comes down to who you believe the users of certification are:

Certified companies
Their customers - the purchasers of products and services
Each of these groups has a different agenda. The customers may want certification to give them conforming product or services at lower cost. Playing devil's advocate - the certified companies may believe they can "do" quality on their own and want their certification at lowest cost / least hassle.Yes. The expectations of the certified organizations and their customers (and other stakeholders) are, many times, very different. But, in my mind, there is no question on who the users of 3rd party certificates are.
The certified organizations are the buyers of registrar services, not the users, even though they (the certified organization) can benefit significantly from the service provision.

That is exactly my point. To this date, accreditors and, to an extent, the buyers of certification services are influencing the design of the accreditation process. Until the actual users of the process demand the changes that will bring about confidence and trust, the accredited certification process will falter.

If you pay attention to the presentations provided via the IATF on this subject, they are very happy with the TS 16949 certification process, vis a vis the significant quality improvement of the automotive supply chain. Their assessment, not mine. They seem to be happy with how the process is working in their sector.Now Sidney! I am sure you know I understand the difference between paying attention and viewing any communications from any authoritative body. I also know not to take stuff at face value. :lol:

I have yet to see any facts that support the argument that TS is working - unless anyone on the cove has some?

Let me put this all another (cynical) way.

The AIAG were not happy with certification to QS (a scheme developed by them but accredited by the current IAF members) so they decided to use the IATF
The IATF is very happy with the TS certification process accredited by ... er .... the IATF
An IATF contact has confirmed (informally) that they are not happy with the process but are happier having a smaller number of CBs to "manage"


Guys, I think your comments and debate back and forth may apply to some of the ISO 9001 auditors. Some of the ISO guys I meet are somewhat limited in broad experience.

However, most of the TS guys i meet have a pretty good bit of depth and experience. Some registrars are better than others, and there are some weak folks out there, but many/most I meet provide good product. Better than the average ISO guys, on the whole.
Not in my experience. I have seen some TS qualified auditors at first hand and wouldn't give them house room. I'm sure there are some about but have yet to meet them!

I could give you some horror stories (including some "blue chip" CBs) .... :mg:

There is a general lack of systems thinking about the whole system of implementation, assessment, certification and accreditation. It is all characterized by a lack of ownership:
"I'm OK - it's everyone else!" :notme:

FWIW I will own up to being part of the problem - I just hope to be part of the solution! :D

Yes. The expectations of the certified organizations and their customers (and other stakeholders) are, many times, very different. But, in my mind, there is no question on who the users of 3rd party certificates are.
The certified organizations are the buyers of registrar services, not the users, even though they (the certified organization) can benefit significantly from the service provision. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe both groups are stakeholders in accredited certification and there are others - the standards developers for one.

The way I see it the certified company is interested in:

The CB / Registrar processes (simple & straightforward)
A fair assessment of their management system
The benefits an independent view gives them
Opportunities for improvement
Improvement resulting from effective maintenance of their systems
Recognition of their system by a recognized body (deliberately last)

The certified company's customer is interested in:

Their supplier having a robust management system to deliver product and service consistently
An input to their supplier approval process

That is exactly my point. To this date, accreditors and, to an extent, the buyers of certification services are influencing the design of the accreditation process. Until the actual users of the process demand the changes that will bring about confidence and trust, the accredited certification process will falter.Some users of certification (who may be certified themselves and dealing with certified suppliers as well) are the ones driving the ABs. Their dissatisfaction with certification (my guess is of their suppliers) is leading them to use the voice they have with the ABs to require changes.

Whether this is data based I cannot comment.

I was wondering... if the automotive companies are satisfied with the results of TS16949 systems certified suppliers, why do they still have a gazillion other customer specifics, and parallel systems such as Ford Q1. Plus their own core tools in addition to the AIAG core tools. I also think the word "robust" has been a misnomer bandied about by some buzz word junkies, when "effective" more accurately describes the system. I like my coffee "robust".

I have yet to see any facts that support the argument that TS is working - unless anyone on the cove has some?Look at the last slide of the presentation by Joe Bransky, during the IAF Industry Day in San Francisco.

I was wondering... if the automotive companies are satisfied with the results of TS16949 systems certified suppliers, why do they still have a gazillion other customer specifics, and parallel systems such as Ford Q1. Plus their own core tools in addition to the AIAG core tools.Because all of these collective requirements are perceived to add value, from the OEM's perspective. That would be my guess.

Look at the last slide of the presentation by Joe Bransky, during the IAF Industry Day in San Francisco.

Thanks, Sidney. I have looked. Now what information is it you would like me to assess? :confused:

Thanks, Sidney. I have looked. Now what information is it you would like me to assess? :confused:Those are the benefits reported by the automotive OEMs in support of the TS certification process. So, contrary to your assertion that there are no facts to show that the TS process is better than the others, this sector is reporting significant gains. Once again: their assessment, not mine.

Those are the benefits reported by the automotive OEMs in support of the TS certification process. So, contrary to your assertion that there are no facts to show that the TS process is better than the others, this sector is reporting significant gains. Once again: their assessment, not mine.
Ok. I'm not going to get into a long drawn out debate. My take is that the accreditation authority is telling the world about how good the scheme they have designed and implemented is.

My experience tells me different but are, like the presentation, anecdotal. There are no facts for me to base my decisions on. (Principle No. 7) :D

My take is that the accreditation authority is telling the world about how good the scheme they have designed and implemented is.These are the same folks that provided negative feedback about the QS-9000 experiment. If you were familiar with the North American Automotive OEM's, you would know that they have no problem offering criticism of the way CB's perform. So, for them to report such gains, they have to <indirectly> admit that the CB performance in this sector has improved under the IATF control. But remember, the goal is not CB performance, but supplier performance and product integrity. I believe that this Industry is finally realizing that certification of a supplier QMS to a standard (such as TS-16949) is an important, but, still a COMPONENT of supplier monitoring. Not an end-all activity. And that, is something that many people do not understand, to this date.

This is not to say that all is fine in the process. The next version of the TS Rules is expected before the end of the year.

These are the same folks that provided negative feedback about the QS-9000 experiment. Now I said I wouldn't get into a drawn out debate. You know it gives me a headache. :frust: In the slide there are a few unattributed comments about how wonderful the new system is. I need some data.

If you were familiar with the North American Automotive OEM's, you would know that they have no problem offering criticism of the way CB's perform. So, for them to report such gains, they have to <indirectly> admit that the CB performance in this sector has improved under the IATF control. Again who has reported these gains - I see no names / companies to check the data with?

I spent 18 months working for a UK based division of a US OEM. My experience of TS is that there isn't the same belief in the 'new' process that IATF are presenting.

But remember, the goal is not CB performance, but supplier performance and product integrity. I believe that this Industry is finally realizing that certification of a supplier QMS to a standard (such as TS-16949) is an important, but, still a COMPONENT of supplier monitoring. Not an end-all activity. And that, is something that many people do not understand, to this date. Yes the best judge of effectiveness of TS is the results of the J D Power survey (or equivalent) about how end users view their vehicles.

I have had a check on their web site here (http://www.jdpower.com/autos/articles/2007-Initial-Quality-Study-Results).

Vehicle quality levels have remained stable since 2006.
Overall, the industry is on par with the 2006 IQS study results.
New product launches remain problematic for many manufacturers. For every new redesigned model that is introduced without quality concerns, three new redesigned models perform worse in initial quality than their predecessors.
Modern technology integration remains a challenge for automakers. Even when the technology works as intended, steep learning curves result in customer dissatisfaction. Based on IQS survey results, consumers want technology to be easier to understand and use.


Bullet 3 is interesting.:)

Yes the best judge of effectiveness of TS is the results of the J D Power survey (or equivalent) about how end users view their vehicles. Wrong, Paul. Very wrong. Consumer satisfaction with their vehicles, while critical to the OEM's, is totally dissociated with the TS-certification process. The same consumers that wanted monstrous SUV's and their gas-guzzling prowess 4 years ago are standing in line for hybrid gas sipping econoboxes now.

TS certification of the automotive supply chain is intended to ensure product integrity, conformance, fewer lines disruptions, lesser product recalls, higher reliability, etc... It was not designed for end-consumer satisfaction, even though there is an obvious correlation.

Obviously, if an OEM is able to decrease the development cycle time and offer the consumer the new features they want in a shorter time, great. If the OEM experiences fewer product recalls, offer more reliable products, etc... the consumer gains. But to infer that any car buyers satisfaction survey is the best meter for the efficacy of the TS certification process is inappropriate, in my opinion.

It would be analogous to infer that the AS9100 accredited certification process is a failure because airline passenger dissatisfaction is at an all-time high.

Wrong, Paul. Very wrong. Wrong, Sidney? Wrong? :confused:[/QUOTE]
The 2007 IQS measures consumer satisfaction with vehicle design and mechanical quality: design quality to gauge how the vehicle works (i.e., control operation and layout) and mechanical quality to determine how the vehicle is assembled and functions.
I appreciate we don't have the full data from the report and the methodology used but this isn't the consumer satisfaction survey - it's the new car quality survey.
If you want another survey (UK based for 2007) here (http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=229319)it is:
British-built Japanese cars have triumphed in this year’s reliability survey from What Car?

Top 10
Position Model Years made Faults per 100 cars
1 Toyota Corolla ’00-’02 British Built 3
2 Honda CR-V ’97-’02 British Built 5
3= Honda HR-V ’99-’05 6
3= Toyota Celica ’00-’06 6
5 Honda S2000 ’99-now 7
6= BMW 3 Series Compact ’94-’01 9
6= Honda Civic ’96-’01 British Built 9
6= Honda Accord ’99-’03 British Built 9
9 Honda Civic ‘01-’05 British Built 10
10 Nissan Micra ’98-’02 British Built 11

Bottom 10
1 Alfa Romeo GTV ’96-’03 97
2 Renault Espace ’97-’02 77
3 Jaguar XK8 ’96-’06 62
4 Renault Laguna '00-’07 55
5 Fiat Multipla ’99-now 52
6 Volvo S80 ’98-’06 51
7= Land Rover Freelander ’00-’06 48
7= Land Rover Range Rover ’95-’02 48
7= Audi Allroad ’00-’05 48
10 Seat Alhambra ’00-now 47

Sorry about the layout - cut 'n' paste!

Paul, there is much more to end-user, customer satisfaction issues than how an organization manage it's supply chain.

Paul, there is much more to end-user, customer satisfaction issues than how an organization manage it's supply chain.

I agree with Sidney on this one. The JD Power Survey isn't a good measurement of customer satisfaction, IMHO. As a past Land Rover/Jaguar sales person, I can vouch for the fact that LR often got JDP Initial quality demerits because the sales hand-over process didn't fully cover all the complexities of the multiple functions of those vehicles and their controls. Hence, customers got annoyed because, for example, they couldn't get their bluetooth phone to synch. to the car, (the handbooks the size of War and Peace and who reads them anyways) and so it became a customer complaint.

Hardly anything to do with the LR plant or it's supplier being TS compliant........

Consumer satisfaction with their vehicles, while critical to the OEM's, is totally dissociated with the TS-certification process....

Sidney, I think you've put your finger on the problem.

I give up. If people don't want to read the details of the post! :truce:

Of course everything is OK - here (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=251498&postcount=15)is the evidence

I give up. If people don't want to read the details of the post! :truce:

Of course everything is OK - here (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=251498&postcount=15)is the evidence

Paul, just to add a little bit more info in here;

I love my car! I think GM has a gem (hey that's nearly poetry) with the Cobalt and I really enjoy driving it. Paradoxically, I didn't fill out the survey I got because it had little to do with the car itself and a lot about the dealership, the buying experience etc.

I am/was delighted - with the car - but not with the dealership. Of course, I curse the people who prepared the reams of documentation that (apparently) shows the wheel painting process is under control, that the RPN for flaky paint was below anything which needed attention (too many cut and pasted PFMEA's), the customer QAR's who've signed off on the whole package - and of course the happless auditors who've never actually looked and seen any of this as 'effective'!

This fault is, incidently, not isolated........a quick review of the www.cobaltss.net forum will show that.

So, my point is - in many cases TS has done little to nothing to improve quality, IMHO. Sure it's reduced costs - for the OE's. And JD Power has little to do with the real perception of the customer and their satisfaction - I pitched my survey because it was so bad, they'd think a crank had completed it and I rather doubt they'd do anything, anyway - per my other post.

In a recent automotive related magazine article, a journalist lamented the long list of problems with his new Mustang. I'm amazed at the subsequent letters which were published (mainly from dealers) basically saying "Oh it's not that bad. There aren't many problems with Fords".

The fact is, that customer is 100% affected and the dealers and the OE's don't get it. Plus, what else can the owner do? Financially, we end up with a lease for two/three years or a car which once it's sold, is only worth 50% of it's sticker. Can't really flex the old financial muscle and show them who's the customer, can we............?

Reality? JD Power isn't worth the hype and TS doesn't affect the consumer in any practical sense, because most OE's or the dealerships don't do most of what's in ISO/TS 16949, anyway............

The presentations delivered during the 3rd IAF Industry Day are available below. I find specially interesting paper number 3 which indicates that Accreditation might become a regulated activity in Europe, in the near future.

I find #3 disturbing.....EA wants to have a single AB per country, however this has been fought in ILAC and its Regions for several years.....the cross-border policy is well established and observed by ILAC ABs, where the typical questions go something like this :
Do you know you have a resident national accrediting body?
Have you contacted them?
Do you mind if they provide an observer at their expense during the assessment?

Generally, a lab or agency that is going outside its country knows they have a resident AB and has chosen not to do business with them.

The move by regulators at EA will undermine the Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs) and remove choice.....and most likely if it is imposed on ILAC ABs could result in a WTO challenge.....

Hershal, you keep trying to commingle two very distinct accreditation processes.
Even though the IAF and ILAC try to work in unison, laboratory accreditation is very different from Certification Body accreditation. The first is a for-profit, competitive market. The second is not supposed to be.

If regulating the accreditation activity is done in a way that enhances trust and confidence for the users of management system certificates, it would be a welcomed change.

One of the problems with the accredited certification process is that many players are willing to commit unethical, immoral, fraudulent acts, but they are not illegal. If such acts become illegal, due to market regulation, the consequences would be direr for the transgressors.

Sidney,

Had the slides clearly restricted themselves only to IAF, I would not even have replied.....

Regulators however have a way of forgetting such distinctions when they simply use the term accreditation and then write laws such as what is proposed in the slides, hence my concerns.....

Hope this helps.....

Oh, one other point.....ILAC recognized ABs that do Guide 65 accreditations may well be affected, as Guide 65 comes under IAF rather than ILAC.....

Had the slides clearly restricted themselves only to IAF, I would not even have replied.....Well, the slides were part of an IAF Industry Day.

That is where they were PRESENTED, not what they said..........

Sidney..............

Can you ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that regulators will not "blur" the ILAC/IAF differences?

If you can't, then you must admit I am OK in voicing my concerns.....

This beyond you and I, so there is no contest or wizzing contest here, in my opinion.....

Hershal

Can you ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that regulators will not "blur" the ILAC/IAF differences?

If you can't, then you must admit I am OK in voicing my concerns.....You can voice your concerns as much as you want. I just think they are misplaced in this thread.

The only common thing between accreditation of management system certification bodies and laboratory accreditation is the word accreditation. The processes are very distinct, with different concerns. All of the discussions presented during the IAF Industry Days have dealt with the IAF subordinated accreditation process.

As I have mentioned already, just the fact that laboratory accreditation is a competitive activity brings a totally different dynamic to your discussion. I don't think any sane mind would propose the establishment of a national monopoly for laboratory assessment services.

So, trying to inject a discussion over laboratory accreditation at this thread, is misguided, in my opinion. But you are certainly free to make your concerns known. You could consider, however, starting a specific thread on that subject.

The only common thing between accreditation of management system certification bodies and laboratory accreditation is the word accreditation. The processes are very distinct, with different concerns. All of the discussions presented during the IAF Industry Days have dealt with the IAF subordinated accreditation process.

As I have mentioned already, just the fact that laboratory accreditation is a competitive activity brings a totally different dynamic to your discussion. I don't think any sane mind would propose the establishment of a national monopoly for laboratory assessment services.

So, trying to inject a discussion over laboratory accreditation at this thread, is misguided, in my opinion. But you are certainly free to make your concerns known. You could consider, however, starting a specific thread on that subject.

Sidney,

No matter how I phrase this it will sound bad.....but I am not trying to get a contest going, only to explain a few things.....

You are correct that lab and inspection agency AB accreditation is different than 9K AB accreditation.....

However, EA is well known to have supported a single-AB-per-economy approach for a long time; this has been the genesis of the cross-border requirements of questions from ILAC. And in fact, most economies have only one AB for labs and agencies.....

Regulators tend to not know the difference between the two kinds of accreditation, they see the single term and figure it is all the same.....unless the regulators you run across are different than most I have encountered.

Also, you have not addressed my comment regarding Guide 65 accreditation.....in North America, it is typical that the Guide 65 is done by ILAC ABs, except of course for ANSI, and even they have a component that is ILAC recognized. For those unaware, Guide 65 is product certification.

Oh, I am beginning to take exception to your comment that I am always injecting this.....that suggests a near-constant, on-going effort, which you may well be challenged to support. Your quote "Hershal, you keep trying to commingle..."

In a pure sense you are correct regarding the separation between ILAC and IAF, but that was until government officials got included.....

Much as I hate to interject in a personal battle! :notme:
You are correct that lab and inspection agency AB accreditation is different than 9K AB accreditation.....Here I have to disagree. Accreditation of CBs was invented (like all "good" initiatives over here :D) and only recently was re-engineered .... to make it more like lab accreditation! :bonk:

Previously CBs had a pretty broad scope and were assessed by ABs on their processes. Now ABs are pushing (using the competence argument and their ridiculous standards 17021 pts 1 & 2) for laboratory style accreditation with "competent" assessors for narrow technical areas (equivalent to the standards / methods of laboratories) and a higher level of "verifier" equivalent to the person that authorizes reports in the lab!

However, EA is well known to have supported a single-AB-per-economy approach for a long time; this has been the genesis of the cross-border requirements of questions from ILAC. And in fact, most economies have only one AB for labs and agencies.....This doesn't make it right. There has been a de facto monopoly in accreditation in EU countries for a while now - you cannot get a quote from an AB other than the one in your country. All the EU is doing is enshrining it in law. :mg:

So, in essence what we have is a monopoly situation enshrined in community law - no matter how bad your AB you are stuck with them. :frust:

In the UK we have a Competiotions Commission to investigate monopolies but they are aligned with the people who appoint the AB. Perhaps we need more than one? :lol:

Regulators tend to not know the difference between the two kinds of accreditation, they see the single term and figure it is all the same.....unless the regulators you run across are different than most I have encountered. The problem is the regulators listen to .... the ABs!

They have a limited understanding of the market approach to certification / accreditation and (like most regulators) believe more regulation is the answer. More legislation to enshrine the existing position, more standards to control CBs by weight of paperwork etc., etc.

The rest of the post seems to be relevant to US only so I have no comment.

So, in essence what we have is a monopoly situation enshrined in community law - no matter how bad your AB you are stuck with them.Thank you, Paul. In my viewpoint, this just strengthens my pledge that AB's need to be accountable to the users of accredited certificates, issued under their schemes. Until there is some formal mechanism to enforce accountability of the AB's to Society and Industry at large, the monopolistic approach to accreditation does not guarantee trust and confidence of the end product.

Thank you, Paul. In my viewpoint, this just strengthens my pledge that AB's need to be accountable to the users of accredited certificates, issued under their schemes. Until there is some formal mechanism to enforce accountability of the AB's to Society and Industry at large, the monopolistic approach to accreditation does not guarantee trust and confidence of the end product.

I agree Sidney. Also, at the next level down, CBs / registrars need to be accountable for the certification they provide - unless and until ABs are able to police the industry (and FWIW I don't think it is possible without a sea change in the industry) - a registrar needs to be brought to book by their clients customers (or the customer directly). Hence my earlier proposal for a "name and shame process" shouted down on this forum.

There is too much variability in the output of the assessment and certification process (poor firms certified and good firms forced to jump through hoops on an auditor's whim). On behalf of the CB I represent we welcome any feedback (even if it brings short term pain) in order to improve our "offering" to the market.

a registrar needs to be brought to book by their clients customers (or the customer directly). Hence my earlier proposal for a "name and shame process" shouted down on this forum. Accountability is the key word. The problem with the "name and shame" concept (as I understood) is that there would be much variation as well. As we know very well, sometimes, an ignorant customer will question a supplier and their respective registrar, when, in reality, the customer is at fault.

The supplier 7.2 processes can only work well when the customer 7.4 processes are also operating properly (if you catch my drift).

I still think that well managed feedback loops like the one described in the New OASIS database feature - Contact the CB with concerns about a supplier (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=21973&highlight=OASIS+feature) thread could enhance accountability, at all levels.

I have been away on vacation and much water has flown under the bridge. This might seem like raking up a closed issue - still ...

If you pay attention to the presentations provided via the IATF on this subject, they are very happy with the TS 16949 certification process, vis a vis the significant quality improvement of the automotive supply chain. Their assessment, not mine. They seem to be happy with how the process is working in their sector.

I am presently helping a level 1 supplier seeking to supply FORD. They need to qualify for TS. They have completed the initial audit smoothly and dates for final audit are fixed, which they are confident of clearing. One of the main problems identified during the initial audits was with PPAPs submitted by their suppliers. So I have been asked to teach the suppliers the what and how of PPAPs. (My clients themselves dont know much about it:notme:) Three of the five main suppliers to whom I am now teaching are already TS certified.:mg:

TS is effective:confused:

That is not the end of the story. FORD is not happy only to get the party TS certified. They must also clear a Q1 audit. This audit was conducted last week while I was away. Today I return and discover (expectedly) that they are awash in a sea of red.:bonk:

FORD is happy with TS:confused:

I have been away on vacation and much water has flown under the bridge. This might seem like raking up a closed issue - still ...



I am presently helping a level 1 supplier seeking to supply FORD. They need to qualify for TS. They have completed the initial audit smoothly and dates for final audit are fixed, which they are confident of clearing. One of the main problems identified during the initial audits was with PPAPs submitted by their suppliers. So I have been asked to teach the suppliers the what and how of PPAPs. (My clients themselves dont know much about it:notme:) Three of the five main suppliers to whom I am now teaching are already TS certified.:mg:

TS is effective:confused:

That is not the end of the story. FORD is not happy only to get the party TS certified. They must also clear a Q1 audit. This audit was conducted last week while I was away. Today I return and discover (expectedly) that they are awash in a sea of red.:bonk:

FORD is happy with TS:confused:

Ford, and GM, may be happy with TS as a whole. TS and QS-9000 have in fact helped to tremendously improve the automotive supply chain. Automotive ratings back that up.

But, that does not mean every supplier is golden. The supplier you mention has some fundamental problems with PPAP. But, thst does not generally come up in a Stage 1 audit. It is not on the list. However, their own internal audit program should have caught it. So there are at least two significant processes that are not effective - PPAP and audits, and perhaps others.

If the CB auditors do their job properly, this should get picked up ay the Stage 2 audit.

I am presently helping a level 1 supplier seeking to supply FORD. .............SNIP.......Today I return and discover (expectedly) that they are awash in a sea of red.Is your customer happy?:rolleyes:

Ford, and GM, may be happy with TS as a whole. TS and QS-9000 have in fact helped to tremendously improve the automotive supply chain. Automotive ratings back that up.

But, that does not mean every supplier is golden. The supplier you mention has some fundamental problems with PPAP. But, thst does not generally come up in a Stage 1 audit. It is not on the list. However, their own internal audit program should have caught it. So there are at least two significant processes that are not effective - PPAP and audits, and perhaps others.

If the CB auditors do their job properly, this should get picked up ay the Stage 2 audit.

Suppliers not being certified to TS / ISO or not having any such commitments is a part of stage I. And yes, my customer today is not yet certified. OK if he doesnt know how to do PPAP. What about his suppliers who are certified and still dont know?

Is your customer happy? :rolleyes:

Well, frankly I am not happy. This was a limited scope assignment I took against my better judgement for the sake of old time goodwill. Now there is a full scale pressure on me to take up responsibility as a system consultant and see the company through within an impossible time frame.:bonk: I have said no. But I should learn to say NO in the first place itself.

As far as the customer is concrned, he is perfectly happy so long as he gets on to the FORD approved suppliers list. He doesnt know what a PPAP is, nor is he interested in knowing it.

Suppliers not being certified to TS / ISO or not having any such commitments is a part of stage I. And yes, my customer today is not yet certified. OK if he doesnt know how to do PPAP. What about his suppliers who are certified and still dont know?

During a TS Stage 1 assessment, I do not generally ask questions about purchasing or supply chain certification, unless we stumble onto something. Those requirements come into play when auditing the Purchasing process during a Stage 2.



As far as the customer is concrned, he is perfectly happy so long as he gets on to the FORD approved suppliers list. He doesnt know what a PPAP is, nor is he interested in knowing it.

Well, he will learn quickly what a PPAP is if he gets on the Ford list. And Ford won't care whether he likes it or not. ;)

Well, he will learn quickly what a PPAP is if he gets on the Ford list. And Ford won't care whether he likes it or not. ;)

Thats the whole issue. FORD still needs to bother about going around and conducting second party audits. Even force the suppliers on their path:whip:.

I thought FORD had reported their happiness that TS certification process was sucessfully doing this job for them and they could now sit back, relax and enjoy supplier performance reliability.

Thats the whole issue. FORD still needs to bother about going around and conducting second party audits. Even force the suppliers on their path:whip:.

I thought FORD had reported their happiness that TS certification process was sucessfully doing this job for them and they could now sit back, relax and enjoy supplier performance reliability.

Potdar,

You and I may not like this, but Ford is the Customer and they can do whatever the heck they want. Not everyone runs around with a smile on their face in Automotive Land. :D

Stijloor.

I thought FORD had reported their happiness that TS certification process was sucessfully doing this job for them and they could now sit back, relax and enjoy supplier performance reliability.People who understand the concept of quality management system certification know that, when reliable, certification should be used as a COMPONENT of the whole supplier oversight process. It was never intended to replace the customer responsibility for control of it's supply chain.

People who understand the concept of quality management system certification know that, when reliable, certification should be used as a COMPONENT of the whole supplier oversight process. It was never intended to replace the customer responsibility for control of it's supply chain.

Why are we having doubts on the reliability aspect? What I understood from the discussion so far was that IATF members (I read Ford) are satisfied with the reliability and performance of TS certification process.

was I wrong?

was I wrong?The TS Certification process is a small subset of the quality management system certification sector. I am sure (even based on previous posts you offered) you are aware of the lingering questioning over the credibility of a percentage of management system certificates issued out there. My previous response was not limited to the automotive supply chain TS certification.

If you pay attention to the presentations provided via the IATF on this subject, they are very happy with the TS 16949 certification process, vis a vis the significant quality improvement of the automotive supply chain. Their assessment, not mine. They seem to be happy with how the process is working in their sector.

I am definitely not happy about the credibility. As I have already written, I am currently dealing with three TS certified parties who do not know how to prepare a PPAP.

I was talking about Their assessment, not mine. FORD continuing to do second party audits is just an anecdotal reference, which happens to be a fact.

I was talking about Their assessment, not mine. FORD continuing to do second party audits is just an anecdotal reference, which happens to be a fact.If I were doing 2,000 second party audits 5 years ago and only have to do 100 this year, I would be happy too.

If I were doing 2,000 second party audits 5 years ago and only have to do 100 this year, I would be happy too.

Hmm... thats where I thought I was wrong.

So I go around doing only 100 audits on a sampling basis and as a sample, I choose prospective suppliers who are not yet certified even to TS knowing fully well that I am going to heap a bucketful of reds on their head.

Nice value addition achieved I must say. Or is it some innovative way to utilise the free time generated because of 'significant quality improvement of the automotive supply chain brought about by TS'?

I would possibly do such a thing for hand holding if I were really in a crunch for supplies. Well, Ford is not famous for such practices, and no such thing is happening in this particular case for sure.

So I go around doing only 100 audits on a sampling basis and as a sample, I choose prospective suppliers who are not yet certified even to TS knowing fully well that I am going to heap a bucketful of reds on their head.You probably misunderstood me. Theoretically, you are doing fewer audits because your supplier performance improved dramatically, and there is no need to perform as many 2nd party QMS audits as before.

Concerning audits of suppliers that are not TS certified, makes a lot of sense to me. Exactly, due to the fact that they are not certified.

You probably misunderstood me. Theoretically, you are doing fewer audits because your supplier performance improved dramatically, and there is no need to perform as many 2nd party QMS audits as before.

Concerning audits of suppliers that are not TS certified, makes a lot of sense to me. Exactly, due to the fact that they are not certified.

Well, its not a supplier but a prospective supplier. And he is in the process of getting certified to TS.

If I am happy with the credibility of TS, I would rather wait for him to get certified and then take a call on whether I need to audit him. That way I would be avoiding a lot of unnecessary duplication of work.

Well, its not a supplier but a prospective supplier. And he is in the process of getting certified to TS.

If I am happy with the credibility of TS, I would rather wait for him to get certified and then take a call on whether I need to audit him. That way I would be avoiding a lot of unnecessary duplication of work.The timing when a customer has the biggest leverage with a supplier is exactly before they start doing business. A pre-contract award audit is the one that normally will make the biggest impact.

If the supplier has robust processes deployed, they should not be drowning in a sea of red, during and after the customer audit.

The timing when a customer has the biggest leverage with a supplier is exactly before they start doing business. A pre-contract award audit is the one that normally will make the biggest impact.

If the supplier has robust processes deployed, they should not be drowning in a sea of red, during and after the customer audit.

Fully agreed.

My only point is that this pre contract audit can wait till the TS certification process is over - for the major reason that the customer is supposed to be on record having declared their happiness about the capability of TS to ensure that a robust process is actually deployed - just as they would like to reconfirm by doing a second party audit.

Sequence I: I certify, Third party certifies - I do the donkey work, third party guys put a rubber stamp.

Sequence II: Third party certifies, I audit - Third party guys do the donkey work, I verfy efficacy.

There is too much variability in the output of the assessment and certification process (poor firms certified and good firms forced to jump through hoops on an auditor's whim). On behalf of the CB I represent we welcome any feedback (even if it brings short term pain) in order to improve our "offering" to the market.By the way, Paul, do you know where in the IAF documents, the AB peer review process is described? Earlier today I saw an article from an AB Director of Sales and Marketing, which states in part

The International Accreditation Forum (IAF) oversees, evaluates and formally recognizes bodies that accredit organizations that certify management systems, products or persons.
To my knowledge, the IAF does not formally evaluate anyone, but promotes a peer-review process, whereby the IAF MLA members assess another member. I sent an email to the Secretary of the IAF. Let's see if I get an answer.:cfingers:

By the way, Paul, do you know where in the IAF documents, the AB peer review process is described? Earlier today I saw an article from an AB Director of Sales and Marketing, which states in part

The International Accreditation Forum (IAF) oversees, evaluates and formally recognizes bodies that accredit organizations that certify management systems, products or persons.
To my knowledge, the IAF does not formally evaluate anyone, but promotes a peer-review process, whereby the IAF MLA members assess another member. I sent an email to the Secretary of the IAF. Let's see if I get an answer.:cfingers:


Thanks for the prompt, Sidney. Unfortunately I can't shed too much light on the peer review process. We are talking about a secret society, after all! :)

Not sure how the peer process works or who does the assessments - I'd like to be involved. :D

Unfortunately I can't shed too much light on the peer review process. We are talking about a secret society, after all! :)

Not sure how the peer process works or who does the assessments - I'd like to be involved. :DThank you. I went back to my copy of the ISO/IEC 17011. I only found one paragraph in the Introduction section of the document, which states, in part:
This International Standard specifies the general requirements for accreditation bodies. Peer evaluation mechanisms have been created at regional and international levels, through which assurance is provided that accreditation bodies are operating in accordance with this International Standard. Those who have passed such an evaluation can become members of mutual recognition arrangements. Through regular re-evaluations, the continued adherence to this International Standard is assured.
I have to confess that I did not read ALL of the IAF documents, available at their website, but you would think the peer-review process would be better defined, somewhere. After all, it represents the building block for an AB to be accepted into the IAF MLA.

Paul has been vociferous in his displeasure with 17021.There was me thinking I had been subtle! :) On this thread and others I have expressed my view of the issued Pt 1 - "it is a badly written standard developed on the basis of mutual distrust". I last voiced that on a transition assessment last week. Touch wood it hasn't come home to bite me yet.

Also through the association my CB belongs to I have said that the FDIS Pt 2 should be thrown out as it is a prescriptive nightmare (like its older sibling) and will add a whole series of bureaucratic hoops for CBs to jump through and I can confidently predict will add cost without providing any value.
But, on top of that, he has to deal with an AB that seems to impose some very strict interpretations over the requirements of that standard. "My" AB seems to have taken a lead in trying to improve the standards of accredited certification. A stance I fully support.

My problem is the means of achieving this. Additional bureaucratic processes applied across the piece are not the answer. Requiring CBs to operate to ISO 9001 and effective accreditation body auditing of a CB / Registrar intent on satisfying the needs of its customers (and other stakeholders) would lead to meaningful certification assessments and proper management of the process as a whole by the CB.

It is possible that different AB's assess compliance to ISO 17021 in different ways.What?

ABs being the highest level of the conformity assessment food chain and not offering standardized offerings? :sarcasm:

BTW - just to show it is not just me the Chief Executive of the ABCB has discussed this point here (http://www.irca.org/inform/issue17/ABCB.html) on the IRCA web site.

ABs being the highest level of the conformity assessment food chain and not offering standardized offerings? :sarcasm:According to the IAF response I got, the AB peer review process is adequately defined here (http://www.iaf.nu/index.php?artid=3&place=pubInd).
The mechanism by which IAF implements its objective is the IAF Multilateral Recognition Arrangement (MLA). Accreditation body members of IAF are admitted to the MLA only after a most stringent evaluation of their operations by a peer evaluation team which is charged to ensure that the applicant member complies fully with both the international standards and IAF requirements. Once an accreditation body is a member of the MLA it is required to recognize the certificates issued by certification/registration bodies accredited by all other members of the MLA.
IAF has granted Special Recognition to two Regional Accreditation Groups, the European co-operation for Accreditation (EA) and the Pacific Accreditation Cooperation (PAC), on the basis of the acceptance of the mutual recognition arrangements established within these organizations. Membership of the IAF MLA is recognized as being satisfied by membership of either the EA MLA or the PAC MLA and IAF members who are also signatories of these regional MLAs are automatically accepted into the IAF MLA. Special Recognition was granted to the Interamerican Accreditation Cooperation (IAAC) for the Quality Management Systems (QMS) MLA at the IAF Annual Meetings held in Cancun, Mexico in November 2006.

Some questions beg to be asked:

How often are the peer reviews performed?
How long, deep and effective are the peer review assessments?
Are peer review assessments affected by cultural and language barriers?
What are the qualifications and competence requirements for assessors doing AB peer-review audits?
What is the process for dispute resolution during and after peer-review assessments?
Besides ISO/IEC 17011, what are the other requirements assessed?
For the sake of transparency, could sanitized peer-review audit reports be posted?
Etc....
Since the IAF is supposed to be the pinnacle of the Accredited Certification food chain, and confidence in the operation of the AB's is paramount, I would expect to see a much better refined and defined process for peer reviews.... but what do I know?

It looks like Accreditation will become a regulated activity in Europe (http://www.ukas.com/about_accreditation/International/New_EU_legal_framework_for_accreditation.asp). I believe that this will have implications to AB's outside of Europe as well.


The Council of the European Union and the European Parliament have agreed a Regulation that will, for the first time, provide a legal framework for the provision of accreditation services across Europe. The Regulation, expected to be formally adopted in June this year, will apply from January 2010 and will cover the operation of accreditation in support of voluntary conformity assessment as well as conformity assessment required by legislation. Under the Regulation, accreditation, when carried out against the recognised harmonised standards, is regarded as a public authority activity and EU Member States will be required to appoint a single national accreditation body for these activities.


To improve the consistency of accreditation services across Europe, the Regulation sets common requirements for national accreditation bodies, to be monitored by Member State governments. In essence, the Regulation will require national accreditation bodies:

To be independent from the conformity assessment bodies they accredit
To be objective and impartial
To employ competent personnel for the tasks to be carried out
To operate on a not for profit basis
Not to offer services offered by conformity assessment bodies
Not to compete with other national accreditation bodies
The Regulation will also recognise the European co-operation for Accreditation (EA) as the co-ordinating organisation for the national European accreditation infrastructure. National accreditation bodies will be required to be members of EA and to participate in the peer evaluation programme operated by EA as the preferred means of demonstrating compliance with the legal requirements.
UKAS has worked in close co-operation with the UK Government as the Regulation has been developed and the requirements closely mirror the accreditation system currently in force in the UK. Under the Regulation, conformity assessment bodies will be expected to use their own national accreditation body in most cases but, in other respects, UKAS customers should not be greatly affected by the implementation of the Regulation.
A related EU Decision, expected to be adopted at the same time as the Regulation, will set a common framework for future EU Directives relating to the marketing of products. The Decision establishes a model text covering elements such as the use of standards, CE marking, conformity assessment procedures and the appointment of conformity assessment bodies (‘notified bodies’). The Decision places greater emphasis on the use of accreditation in the assessment of ‘notified bodies’, again with the intention of improving the consistency of approach across Europe.
Copies of the latest texts of the proposed Regulation (http://www.ukas.com/Library/downloads/About_Accreditation/Regulation_270208.pdf) and Decision (http://www.ukas.com/Library/downloads/About_Accreditation/Decision_270208.pdf) can be downloaded but please note that they could be amended further during the final legal processes leading up to formal adoption.
Updates on the progress of the Regulation and Decision and on the arrangements for implementation in the UK will be circulated by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills using the Consultation on Conformity Assessment (ConCAss) mailing list. To be added to the ConCAss mailing list, contact Lisa Rogers at lisa.rogers@dius.gsi.gov.uk (lisa.rogers@dius.gsi.gov.uk)

It looks like Accreditation will become a regulated activity in Europe (http://www.ukas.com/about_accreditation/International/New_EU_legal_framework_for_accreditation.asp). I believe that this will have implications to AB's outside of Europe as well.

You can imagine how much some of us are pleased by this news. :notme: So much so that when the original article was published in the May Quality World magazine here (https://www.iqasecure.co.uk/publication/qw_may08_01.asp) I was forced to put pen to paper - or rather finger to keyboard.

The text of my letter is reproduced here: The article ‘Establishing Trust’ on European accreditation and EU regulation was fascinating. At the beginning a range of ‘problems’ are aired without any data to support conclusions drawn or, more importantly, the solution presented. Therefore the way forward presented by Mr McMillan of additional regulation as the answer does not ring true to me and hence I can confidently predict new regulations covering types of market surveillance, rules about CE marking, definitions and the rest will not solve an undiagnosed problem.

One accreditation body per EU country is one solution among those available to those genuinely interested in how accreditation works and how it can help provide confidence in products and management systems.
What real basis is there for a monopoly in accreditation? Surely if we examine a market in an EU country where there is a de facto monopoly (say for example the UK?) we can decide.

If this model is the future then let us look forward to improvements EU regulation will bring. If, however, this market is no better than any other then perhaps we need to look harder for a root cause – perhaps by accreditation bodies working with the industry rather than against it.
Then, rather than attempting to control a process by weight of guidance, regulation and standards we can understand accreditation and certification processes better.

It will be interesting to see how this develops. In the early to mid 90's, many American companies seeking certification to ISO 9001 would apply for dual (if not multiple) accreditation marks in their certificates, because there was a question about the RAB (at that time) accreditation process having no ties to any branch of the US Government.
When Europe regulates Accreditation, what would be the implications for certificates issued under other accreditation schemes outside of the EU or EEA? The IAF is not (by any means) a governmental organization. What about acceptance of other accreditation marks? Are we going to move away from the "one certificate, accepted everywhere" goal?

Concerning the monopolistic approach to accreditation, it basically formalizes what we have at present, but it does raise concerns, indeed. Even in the USA, where market competition is deemed sacred by many, we do have a few monopolistic approaches to conformity assessment. People, for the most part, resent having to deal with a monopoly.

Another theory is that certification and accreditation bodies have not grasped who their customers are: ‘The customer is actually the organizations that use certifications as a tool in the supplier selection.’ And while certification bodies are focused on seeing the customer as the certified organization and try to keep them happy, the biggest risk to the success of the industry as a whole is if those organizations using certification to select suppliers stop using it ‘because they see it as meaningless’.Should I start charging royalties (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=243004&#post243004)? :tg:

Read the rest @ http://www.irca.org/inform/issue21/SRussell.html

Should I start charging royalties (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=243004&#post243004)? :tg:

Read the rest @ http://www.irca.org/inform/issue21/SRussell.html

Thanks, Sidney. Much as I respect your views ... you can't claim to have had all the good ideas!

Interesting discussion with Simon Feary as part of the interview process. He sees the work CQI and IRCA do as being delivered through CQI members and IRCA certified auditors to the organizations that employ them / are audited by them.

... and as far as I know he doesn't know you! :lol:

What did you think of the other part of the article: One member stated that as long as certification and accreditation bodies created profit and loss statements these conflicts will remain and increase over time: 'Consequently their credibility, and ours as an industry, will diminish’.

I don't suppose you mentioned that one at work? :lmao:

When the Accreditation process was devised, it became a natural expectation that it should be a self-sustaining activity, because nobody wanted to see tax-payer monies being diverted in to that type of business and the creation of another governmental bureaucracy.

When the Accreditation process was devised, it became a natural expectation that it should be a self-sustaining activity, ... My memory of when it started in the UK was that a few CBs started it as a means of keeping the cowboys out of the market (apologies to all genuine cowboys out there! :)). When the organisation started in BSI it worked up to the point when its impartiality might be questioned (hoo boy is that a joke now! :lmao:) so it was floated off and HM Government didn't want to pay for it - there is a bit of blurb here (http://www.labnews.co.uk/feature_archive.php/2608/5/testing-testing-one-two-three).
.... because nobody wanted to see tax-payer monies being diverted in to that type of business and the creation of another governmental bureaucracy.Kind of makes you wonder what would have happened if it had been governmental all along!