We have the two stage audits currently practiced in ISO14001 and ISO/TS 16949:2002.

Recently I came across a news item that effective 1-4-2008, ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 18001:2007 Standards would follow the TWO-STAGE certification process in line with ISO/ IEC17021 recommendations.

This means the number of man-days is likely go up and so also the audit fees.

Any comments???

We have the two stage audits currently practiced in ISO14001 and ISO/TS 16949:2002.

Recently I came across a news item that effective 1-4-2008, ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 18001:2007 Standards would follow the TWO-STAGE certification process in line with ISO/ IEC17021 recommendations.

This means the number of man-days is likely go up and so also the audit fees.

Any comments???

That is true. ISO and AS are requiring two stage audit process. Yes the man-days have increased, due to this.

I think it is a good thing that they have decided to go with this type of Certification Process.

From the Guide 65 IAF requirements, there is no increase in the nuber of days allocated to the audit.

Us registrars had to suck that one in. The only increased costs are to the client in the extra travel associated with two trips. But the advantages out weigh that. Especially if combined with a pre-assessment.

Actually, this is a return to the registration process which many British third parties used way back in the UK in the early 1990's.

A couple of corrections:
ISO 18001 is not the same as OHSAS 18001. ISO 18001 is an RFID related document.

Secondly, the implementation deadline for ISO/IEC 17021:2006 is September 15, 2008.

Especially if combined with a pre-assessment. For the uninitiated, how is the 1st audit visit (Stage 1) different than a pre-assessment?

I understand that the Pre-assessment is a choice (not required) but, the 1st stage (required) is like having the Pre-assessment required. I don't really see the advantages to a Pre-Assessment when they now require a 1st stage audit.

My understanding is that the 1st stage assessment is like a desk audit of your Quality Management System, except it is on-site. Also, this is to determine your readiness for the Full-blown assessment.

Case in point: I still don't know the differences of Pre-Assessment vs 1st Stage except that the 1st stage is required and the pre-assessment is optional.

By definition as provided by a Registrar that I am considering:

Stage 1 (Readiness Review) Audit: The readiness review is an on-site audit that includes a comprehensive review of documentation and key management processes to ensure their adherence to the requirements...

Pre-assessment: This activity is optional and is not required to achieve certification, however, it provides several benefits including: identification of system gaps, familiarity with the auditor and auditing process...

The 'Stage 1' as Coury correctly states, is an on-site review. It is more than a desk audit and not a 'pre-assessment', either.

There are a number of purposes of the stage 1; to review the system and its documentation (normally for compliance to the ruling std), ensure the scope is applicable and accurate, determine the state of readiness of the organization for the registration audit (the so called 'stage 2') and confirm/plan the stage 2 audit arrangements (schedule, personnel, timing etc), including ensuring the existence of any other sites which may have been omitted.

There is no real 'auditing' done, but confirmation of what was in the original application with the registrar as accurate.

The pre-assessment is a flexible approach to havng the system 'tested' to see if it has any obvious weaknesses which may only be apparent to the CB auditor (some folks don't get outside help), or to get 'calibrated' with the approach of the CB auditor etc.