Can an organization claim ISO 9001 certified even if the certification comes from second party only?

Can an organization claim ISO 9001 certified even if the certification comes from second party only?

Yes. A company can even claim self-certification if they want. However, most companies (if they are knowledgeable) wont recognize the certification as being valid.

Yes. A company can even claim self-certification if they want. However, most companies (if they are knowledgeable) wont recognize the certification as being valid.

I have even seen organizations proudly displyaing certificates based on a 1st party audit.....the local offices of the certification bodies which were certified by the same cert body....and I don't see there is any harm in that provided the auditors are qualified and competent enough to conduct the audit.


Regards,

Arin

Some may be interested in this: Audit - First, Second and Third Party - Definitions (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=7346&highlight=party+audit)

I have even seen organizations proudly displyaing certificates based on a 1st party audit.....the local offices of the certification bodies which were certified by the same cert body....and I don't see there is any harm in that provided the auditors are qualified and competent enough to conduct the audit.


Regards,

Arin

1st party audit are nothing more than an internal audit. 2nd party audits are customer-performed audit for which a customer may issue an approval letter to a company.

In both cases they are not registration audits performed by internationally accepted Certification/Registration Body.

Jeff

I have even seen organizations proudly displyaing certificates based on a 1st party audit.....the local offices of the certification bodies which were certified by the same cert body....and I don't see there is any harm in that provided the auditors are qualified and competent enough to conduct the audit.


Regards,

Arin

So how would you know the auditors were those things? That's one of the (many) reasons why accredited, third party certification is so popular! The accreditation (if performed to ISO/IEC 17021) takes care of these aspects.

We read (here) all the time about dubious 'interpretations' of ISO 9001 requirements (or similar standards) by over-zealous, inexperienced etc. supplier Quality auditors, which might tell you something about the effectiveness of 2nd party 'certification'.......

So how would you know the auditors were those things? That's one of the (many) reasons why accredited, third party certification is so popular! The accreditation (if performed to ISO/IEC 17021) takes care of these aspects.

We read (here) all the time about dubious 'interpretations' of ISO 9001 requirements (or similar standards) by over-zealous, inexperienced etc. supplier Quality auditors, which might tell you something about the effectiveness of 2nd party 'certification'.......

We also read fairly often about CB auditors' dubious interpretations. Most customers who want their suppliers to be ISO 9001 compliant expect third-party audit and registration, which is the primary reason that self-certification and second-party "approval" are not considered acceptable.

We also read fairly often about CB auditors' dubious interpretations. Most customers who want their suppliers to be ISO 9001 compliant expect third-party audit and registration, which is the primary reason that self-certification and second-party "approval" are not considered acceptable.
CB auditors should not sound like that :nope::nope:

CB auditors should not sound like that :nope::nope:
And usually they don't, but it does happen.

We also read fairly often about CB auditors' dubious interpretations. Most customers who want their suppliers to be ISO 9001 compliant expect third-party audit and registration, which is the primary reason that self-certification and second-party "approval" are not considered acceptable.

That's very true and regretable! I'd offer to suggest that it's also common to find those posts here simply because the auditee (poster) isn't as familiar with the situation as they should/could be! As a result, they are not in a position to deal with the (incorrect) nature of the auditor's finding or are unwilling/unable to 'push back', when it's clearly wrong. We often respond 'did you sicuss this/seek clarification before the auditor left..?"

Yes, CB auditors get it wrong, but they'd get less wrong, if more clients were confident about their systems......

That's very true and regretable! I'd offer to suggest that it's also common to find those posts here simply because the auditee (poster) isn't as familiar with the situation as they should/could be! As a result, they are not in a position to deal with the (incorrect) nature of the auditor's finding or are unwilling/unable to 'push back', when it's clearly wrong. We often respond 'did you sicuss this/seek clarification before the auditor left..?"

Yes, CB auditors get it wrong, but they'd get less wrong, if more clients were confident about their systems......
Maybe because clients don’t like to sound complaining on CB's performance otherwise they may end up with unfavorable audit results.

Maybe because clients don’t like to sound complaining on CB's performance otherwise they may end up with unfavorable audit results.

There's big difference between 'complaining' and having a dialog with an auditor! If the dialog doesn't resolve the situation, then it should be continued with the CB's Operations management......

Let's be real here. If a raw material supplier delivered any less than what was expected, you wouldn't mind sending the stuff back 'for fear of being sent more..'

Because clients 'roll over' and are not prepared to deal with such situations is one of the reasons that ISO certification is viewed cynically in some areas....

There's big difference between 'complaining' and having a dialog with an auditor!
It depends upon auditor and auditor’s mood. Experience has shown me this so far.

It depends upon auditor and auditor’s mood. Experience has shown me this so far.


Then, I'd suggest you ask the CB for a less 'moody' auditor! Our industry has (in general) to kick up its customer service a number of notches.......it starts with robust customer feedback. If you accept mediocre service, that's what you'll get.....

'Customer is always right' doesn’t apply here.

'Customer is always right' doesn’t apply here.

You need another CB, then...........end of story!

There's big difference between 'complaining' and having a dialog with an auditor! If the dialog doesn't resolve the situation, then it should be conintued with the CB's Operations management......

Let's be real here. If a raw material supplier delivered any less than what was expected, you wouldn't mind sending the stuff back 'for fear of being sent more..'

Because clients 'roll over' and are not prepared to deal with such situations is one of the reasons that ISO certification is viewed cynically in some areas....Excellent analogy in the second paragraph. Agree with this post wholeheartedly. You need another CB, then...........end of story!But I disagree with this one. MANY times, customers are not correct. Especially the customers of "management system certification services", who, sometimes expect their auditor to bless, rubber stamp and certify their systems, EVEN when the system fails to comply with the requirements. CB's should focus as much on "user satisfaction" as customer satisfaction. A balanced approach is critical.

Obviously, even when customers are NOT right, they remain the customer.

Excellent analogy in the second paragraph. Agree with this post wholeheartedly. But I disagree with this one. MANY times, customers are not correct. Especially the customers of "management system certification services", who, sometimes expect their auditor to bless, rubber stamp and certify their systems, EVEN when the system fails to comply with the requirements. CB's should focus as much on "user satisfaction" as customer satisfaction. A balanced approach is critical.

Obviously, even when customers are NOT right, they remain the customer.

In this context, Sidney, the auditors are clearly wrong - we were discussing those erroneous audit findings, which clients acquiesce to, rather than deal with - or deal with the auditor.

I've had experience (as a consultant) with clients of a range of CBs who were 'wrong' - in your example - but that wasn't the main theme of this thread.......

Let's be real here. If a raw material supplier delivered any less than what was expected, you wouldn't mind sending the stuff back 'for fear of being sent more..'


Excellent analogy in the second paragraph. Agree with this post wholeheartedly.

While I agree in principle (that customers of CBs need to protest when auditors are wrong) I don't think it's an apt analogy, given the wildly different dynamics of the two situations. If a CB auditor is wrong, you can't bundle him up and send him back along with a debit memo, even figuratively. There's no accounting for the time wasted in trying to get an auditor to retract a finding, and then escalating the issue if the auditor refuses to listen to reason.

Nonetheless, CBs really don't have a good way of telling when auditors are incompetent unless their clients tell them so.

In this context, Sidney, the auditors are clearly wrong - we were discussing those erroneous audit findings, which clients acquiesce to, rather than deal with - or deal with the auditor.

I've had experience (as a consultant) with clients of a range of CBs who were 'wrong' - in your example - but that wasn't the main theme of this thread.......

Yes, in that context CB is wrong. But then again it depends upon auditor.
One thing is for sure Sidney is an exceptional auditor.

If a CB auditor is wrong, you can't bundle him up and send him back along with a debit memo, even figuratively. There's no accounting for the time wasted in trying to get an auditor to retract a finding, and then escalating the issue if the auditor refuses to listen to reason.

Jim, isn't this more to do with 'dispositioning' the non-conforming service, rather than documenting it and notifying those concerned......? In such a case, the analogy is apt, IMHO!

In running the Receiving function many years ago, the company may have even chosen to 'eat' the non-conforming product, so delivered, but it never prevented us from clearly reporting it (and our displeasure) to the offending supplier.......

It's that which I wish more CB clients would do.......document the non-conforming service and communicate it - not stick a 'Reject' sticker on the auditor :lmao:

Jim, isn't this more to do with 'dispositioning' the non-conforming service, rather than documenting it and nofiying those concerned......? In such a case, Sidney's analogy is apt, IMHO!

It was your analogy, Andy. :confused:

I found this a very interesting "back-and-forth" discussion, I must admit, I have become quite addicted to the "Cove". :applause:
My "penny's worth" is:
If I audit my own company = First party... but tread carefully here (Internal) :rolleyes:
If, in the capacity as consultant, I audit the company that I am supplying my services to = First party (Internal audit) :agree1:
If the company I am supplying my services to, is audited by one of their clients = 2nd party :yes:
If the company I am supplying my services to is audited by a registrar = 3 party :whip:
If I am contracted by a registrar to audit a company, other than the one I am supplying my services to = 3rd party for the company being audited. :tg:
I cannot, if contracted by the registrar, audit the company I am supplying my services to (conflict of interest). :argue:
Vic de Beer

Nonetheless, CBs really don't have a good way of telling when auditors are incompetent unless their clients tell them so.
Unfortunately, many of the auditees don't have the competence to tell when their auditor is incompetent either. :(

Unfortunately, many of the auditees don't have the competence to tell when their auditor is incompetent either. :(

Auditee will not tell their auditors because they are supposed to know the requirement better than the auditing organization. If auditing organization is more knowledgeable than CB auditors, then they don’t need the third-party audit. rember implementation comes after knowing the applicable requirements.:2cents:

The audited organization doesn't have to know the standard better than the auditor to have enough knowledge to determine the auditor's competence.

Auditee will not tell their auditors because they are supposed to know the requirement better than the auditing organization. If auditing organization is more knowledgeable than CB auditors, then they don’t need the third-party audit. rember implementation comes after knowing the applicable requirements.:2cents:

How can you suggest such a thing?

That's like having the QC department know more about a product spec. than the people who set up and run the manufacturing process! How long would a business last if the QC people kept rejecting the product for features which the Production people didn't even know they were supposed to make!

Crazy..........

How can you suggest such a thing?

That's like having the QC department know more about a product spec. than the people who set up and run the manufacturing process! How long would a business last if the QC people kept rejecting the product for features which the Production people didn't even know they were supposed to make!

Crazy..........

This is an international forum, and we should keep in mind that there are times when cultural imperatives control or significantly influence business and social relationships.

How can you suggest such a thing?

That's like having the QC department know more about a product spec. than the people who set up and run the manufacturing process! How long would a business last if the QC people kept rejecting the product for features which the Production people didn't even know they were supposed to make!

Crazy..........

Yes, organization knew more about product specs and how they run the business. What I am trying to convey is that let say CB auditor told the auditee that this is the finding and this is the clause violated, even if there will be a wash-up meeting (at the end of the audit) before auditor left the auditing organization, audit reports (clauses) are too technical and they still need enough time to provide appropriate answers. They (auditee) usually realized after a day or two that it’s not actually nonconformity and there is a better justification for those findings but failed to provide during the actual audit.

Just a clarification on my previous post, Auditees presumption is that CB Auditors knew the minimum requirements (ISO 9001 standards) better than what they knew, not the organization’s unique processes.

Unfortunately, many of the auditees don't have the competence to tell when their auditor is incompetent either. :(Yes, and in addition to that, let's remember the ANAB Heads Up # 153. Certification Client Bill of Rights and Responsibilities (http://www.anab.org/HTMLFiles/docs/HeadsUp/HU153.pdf) also.

What I am trying to convey is that let say CB auditor told the auditee that this is the finding and this is the clause violated, even if there will be a wash-up meeting (at the end of the audit) before auditor left the auditing organization, audit reports (clauses) are too technical and they still need enough time to provide appropriate answers. They (auditee) usually realized after a day or two that it’s not actually nonconformity and there is a better justification for those findings but failed to provide during the actual audit.

Just a clarification on my previous post, Auditees presumption is that CB Auditors knew the minimum requirements (ISO 9001 standards) better than what they knew, not the organization’s unique processes.

If what you are suggesting is that the auditor didn't point out the non-conformity at the time it was found, or had some discussion with the auditee about their concerns, but waited until the last part of the audit to present it -and then only in technical terms and didn't seek understanding of the auditee - then I refer back to my earlier comment:-

Please, give feedback to your CB about this situation and request another auditor.........

The auditor is supposed to do what I described above.........

Yes, and in addition to that, let's remember the ANAB Heads Up # 153. Certification Client Bill of Rights and Responsibilities (http://www.anab.org/HTMLFiles/docs/HeadsUp/HU153.pdf) also.

Hi Sidney,

Thank you for the link. Sorry if I said something wrong about CB auditors. I just used CB Auditors because what I was referring to are CB Auditors but I don’t generalize. Whenever I say something about CB Auditor, I am speaking of specific issue based from specific experience that has shown me.

I do agree with what you say, Andy, in there being a big difference between 'complaining' and having a dialog with an auditor! And yes, if the outcome of the dialogue isn't satisfactory to the auditee personnel, then it should be continued with the CB's Operations management.

We both know that I'm not talking about the kind of 'well, I want you to give us the certificate even though we can't demonstrate all the evidence needed for 9001' kind of topic.

But how very right you are that
Because clients 'roll over' and are not prepared to deal with such situations is one of the reasons that ISO certification is viewed cynically in some areas....
All the reputable and professional CBs I know welcome feedback from their clients - even when it indicates a problem! Because it also gives them a chance to rectify the situation, 're-align' an auditor if need be, beef up the training, whatever...

Auditee will not tell their auditors because they are supposed to know the requirement better than the auditing organization
Mistaken and wrong belief here.

The audited organization doesn't have to know the standard better than the auditor to have enough knowledge to determine the auditor's competence.
Exactly. Or to have an opinion on the auditor's customer service approach or focus (or lack of same)!

It's like anything else, if you're unhappy, then speak up! Speaking up can - and to be effective, should be - done calmly, objectively and politely. But auditing is a service business. If you just roll over and accept substandard poor service, that's what you'll get.

And none of the good and professional firms and auditors like that. At all.