Is it a good idea to pay a company to do "everything" for you? I've heard of seemingly reputable registrars that will write all of your procedures, quality manual, audit you, train you, and certify you all for a nice sum. Is this the way to go or are there better alternatives to getting certified.

While am at it, I might as well ask. Is ISO a good choice to improve quality? There are many choices, and many ways of doing so. Is ISO worth all the trouble?

Thanks,
Julian

:eek:

One word=no.

More words= back away slowly

They are not "reputable"!! I know exactly who you are talking about and everyone in the industry does too! You should keep clear. Their rep is bad to the bone.

In the three courses I took for the ISO 9K2K, there were about 8 people who had used this registrar and every single one was extremely dissatified and had changed registrars. Every one. There was another person who said that they were approached by this registrar but they would never have anything to do with a "snake oil merchant".:biglaugh:

If you are required to use internal auditors who are independent (or to use the current language= impartial), then does this smell right to you?:bonk: Yeah, I thought not.:)

You knew the answer to this one already, I'm sure.;)

Stay away from those people. They just want drain your pocket book. I believe that registrars should registrar, even if they say that this is a different division.
ISO is a start but management is the driver, if they want a certificate on the wall that is what they will get. If they want to use it as a starting point to improve, then the sky is the limit. Is it worth the trouble? Refer to the above, if for the cert., NO. If for starting point, YES. This should be an interesting thread.

Lucinda wrote
<I took for the ISO 9K2K, there were about 8 people who had used this registrar and every single one was extremely dissatified and had changed registrars>

My experience thus far is that there is more than "one" of these types of companies. Actually thet seem to be quite a popular and all over the place. What troubles me is that these companies have a client base of thousands of companies. How could it be that so many have fallen for such a trap! Maybe I'm missing something.

Thanks All,
Julian

To ISO or not to ISO? That is my question...

Julian,

There is only one registrar "with a name" that I know of who does this. There are training departments within the registrars that offer training courses, but they do not consult or write procedures. The one I'm talking about "guarantees" successful certfication by using their consulting division to put your system together. As far as I know (and I've been out of the game for a year now), any other registrar would essentially be a small time consulting "company" who has RAB accreditation to certify also.

Conflict of interest is one that the accreditation bodies do not take lightly. When we had our accreditation surveillances, they were always making sure that even our training courses were advertised to the public (as opposed to specially scheduled for only one company) and that they were held offsite a client's property (or that if it was onsite, that the sponsoring company would allow the public into their facility to take the course also). While there were some registrars were not as particular about this as we were, it is still not something that would be done without careful :ca: .

The RAB is not as strict as the other accreditation bodies, which is what has allowed this unsavory consulting/certification practice to be openly offerred.

As far as to ISO or not to ISO.... I say ISO. Gives you everything you need as far as structure for your QMS. Then you can employ some of the other methodologies for futher improvement.

Lucinda, you seem to think that accreditation to UKAS would prevent Registrars from mis-behaving.

Well, this unethical Registrar/Consulting Agency alledgedly being indirectly mentioned on this thread, has UKAS accreditation for both EMS and QMS certifications, according to their website.

So how come, according to your line of thought, UKAS does not crack the whip and pulls their accreditation? I think your perception of UKAS's policing effort is seriously outdated.

Until there is transparency in this WHOLE process and until Accreditation Agencies are accountable to the Industry they are supposed to serve, abuses, frauds, scams will exist.

Meaning no offense, but when someone asks if it is ok to pay the same organization to "DO everything", i.e., write documents, train people, audit and issue certificates, we have a typical example of ISO-ignorance that is being preyed upon:mad:

Lucinda, you seem to think that accreditation to UKAS would prevent Registrars from mis-behaving.
Nope, only that RAB doesn't. They have a bigger door than US Immigrations. Additional scrutiny increases conformance whether it's Jaz-Anz or SCC or JAB or RvA or InMetro, etc. Come on Sidney, you're in the game. You know this. They each have their peculiarities and the registrars conform.

So how come, according to your line of thought, UKAS does not crack the whip and pulls their accreditation? I think your perception of UKAS's policing effort is seriously outdated.
Excellent question. Why haven't they? My perception may be outdated, that's true. If they aren't regulating like they should be, then that's a real shame. At least I don't have first-hand knowledge of it so I am blissfully ignorant at the moment.:p
(oh man, why do I feel like I've just opened Pandora's Box?....);)

Could you be more specific?
Which registrar and where? And what exactly was their proposal?

(As for my attitude for such things - they must be PUNISHED)

Yes...Yes

What we need is more punishment!

Lets publically flail those that step out of line!!

Break out the thumbscrews. Make some examples. Get everyone to toe the mark (not to be confused with good ol' Marc who might enjoy some toeing).:biglaugh:

Punishment? Punishment? Did I read the word punishment?

Count me in!!!! Energy, are you available for some punishment?

:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

Lucinda,
I think know the Registrar you are talking about. I have been using them for about two years and have NO complaints. We have been through the registration audit, three surveillance audits and the stage I & II EMS audit; each time with a different auditor from different ends of the country.
Not once have I been approached in an unethical manner for the sake of passing the audit, Nor have I been approached, at any time, to discuss consulting services.

Sam,

Respectfully,

Did you approve, hire, and pay the registrar?

How was the decision process to hire the registrar conducted?

Why is there a different auditor each time?

How many majors and minirs are found (average)?

I think we can all cut the **** and say Perry Johnson!

Al,

"Did you approve, hire, and pay the registrar?"
Yes

"How was the decision process to hire the registrar conducted?"
Telecon with other registrars, cost comparison.

"Why is there a different audit or each time?"
Don't know. Didn't ask. All auditors come from the same "Gene pool" and I haven't experienced any problems.
On this same subject, a registrar I had at another company had the same auditor for pre-ass, registration and surveillance. The one problem that I became concerned with is that he knew our system and began to act like a consultant rather then an auditor.

"How many majors and minirs are found (average)?"
Strange question, are you inferring that the number of majors and minors a registrar writes is evidence of his worthiness?

One major during pre-assessment, 18 minors during registration.


"I think we can all cut the **** and say Perry Johnson!"
I could name another. But then again we all have our own axe to grind.

Sam,

Thank you for your responses! The reason I was asking was for some future research I will be doing.

Thanks again:bigwave:

Al D.

For punishment I enjoy breast stroking through a 50 yard swath of razor wire, topped off by rolling around in salt!:rolleyes:

Sam,

You go Guy! No amount of registrar bashing would sway me from getting the optimum out of my potential Registrar. Conflicts of interest? So what? Who's judging? Opinions and lofty goals are free stuff. If you are totally satisfied and "Registered", you did a great job. If the name is who others are saying, this guy isn't cheap. So, you've spent plenty of cash and consider the money well spent. Isn't that Customer Satisfaction?:ko: :smokin:

Sounds and looks like "line crossing to me". PJ may have been advisors to Arthur Anderson too!:biglaugh:

Auditing & consulting the same client are (or at least should be) like oil and water.

I do a whole bunch of ISO 9000 & 14000 related public training courses for some very well know providers, and I tell the students that they would not see me on an audit team at their facility for at least 2 years if I were working for their Registrar also. I may be exceeding the RAB requirement, but I try to avoid that conflict of interest pitfall as much as possible.

I have no first-hand knowledge of Perry Johnson other than having received some marketing materials from them. I do remember meeting one fellow QM a year or so ago who said they used them and loved them -- hardly a statistically valid sampling, huh? However, after reading some of the scathing reviews on this thread I got curious. I wondered what a company could do to be so reviled! After all, according to their literature, they are currently accredited by the Registrar Accreditation Board (RAB), the Raad voor Accreditatie (RvA), the Japanese Accreditation Board (JAB), the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS), the Brazilian National Institute of Metrology (INMETRO), the German Association for Accreditation (TGA) and the Federal Motor Transport Authority of Dresden (KBA). And since 1995 they were the fastest-growing registrar in North America, and on ISO 9000 were #1 in new registrations in 1999, 2000, and 2001. Surely they must be satisfying someone!

Are all these customers just uninformed or is there something else here? I don't have the answers, but I always get curious when someone at or near the top gets such bad press -- it almost reminds me of Microsoft!

Randy said:


Auditing & consulting the same client are (or at least should be) like oil and water.

I do a whole bunch of ISO 9000 & 14000 related public training courses for some very well know providers, and I tell the students that they would not see me on an audit team at their facility for at least 2 years if I were working for their Registrar also. I may be exceeding the RAB requirement, but I try to avoid that conflict of interest pitfall as much as possible.
Randy,

It sounds like your approach is to go out of your way to avoid any appearances of conflict of interest. That is admirable indeed. Do you suggest a change in the rules of the governing bodies?

By the way - neat avitar. Do you mind my asking what it is you're shooting? Are you a competitive shooter, hunter, military shooter, or just a plinker for fun? Either way -- how un-politically correct of you! Way to go!
:smokin:

Mike S,
Thanks for the research on PJR. I've also been curious as to why they are slammed so much.
PJR is our registrar and has been since 1998 for QS9000. They have always gone out of their way to satisfy our needs as a client. Both their internal and external auditors have conducted themselves proffessionally and above board. Closing meetings were well organized, in the PJR format, and NC's were understood before the auditor left.
Unfortunately, they did not make the cut for an ISO/TS 16949 CB.

Mike,

That's a 20 odd year old photo I decided to use for a bit. It was during my SWAT Team days. I was a Scout/Sniper in the Marines a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. I shot in competition as a Marine and as a police officer for years. I never hunted our furry friends and haven't fired a weapon since '95.

I disagree with Randy's assessment that the scenarios offered above are crossing the line from auditing to consulting. Consulting infers providing advice on HOW to implement processes. Just pointers and ideas on improvement opportunities do not constitute any breach of protocol, nor comprises a conflict of interest. Third-party auditors are expected (explicitly in some Schemes, such as QS-9000) to identify opportunities for improvement. This is probably how 3rd party assessors can add the most value to their relationship with the audited organization. Auditors that are not willing to add value and point areas which the organizations being assessed can improve, are doing a disservice to their clients.

In connection with Sam's post, two things:

- what do you mean by their "internal and external auditors"? They send auditors to audit YOU. How would you know their INTERNAL auditors?
- Have you asked yourself why some Registrars did not make the TS cut? Could it be a case of where there is smoke, there is fire? Why do you think a Registrar that has a pretty good size of QS-9000 certified organizations would not be in the TS IATF approved list? Remember, the IATF is basically by-passing the accreditation process and approving Registrars directly. Why do you think this happened?

And for those that realize that drawing conclusions from a single case is not statistically sound, I suggest you see the surveys available at http://www.qualitydigest.com/july00/html/survey2.html and http://www.qualitydigest.com/july01/html/results.html

Funny how a couple of Registrars were consistently listed in the low part of the scale . . . Even more interesting is the fact that the Survey is no longer being conducted. Lack of interest by readers and resistance by some registrars are the reported reasons.

Until an Arthur Andersen-like case happens in this "ISO9000-World", many decision makers will PREFER to hire a Registrar that does "it all". It is much simpler, cheaper and the results "guaranteed". As long as having a certificate is perceived as an attribute and not a variable, the path of least resistance will prosper. And then, some are amused by the fact that over 80% of the certified organizations are procrastinating well into 2003 to make the transition to the new Standard. Tsc tsc tsc.

"- what do you mean by their "internal and external auditors"? They send auditors to audit YOU. How would you know their INTERNAL auditors?"

I was referring to auditors that work full time for PJR (INTYERNAL) and those that they contract (EXTERNAL)

"- Have you asked yourself why some Registrars did not make the TS cut? Could it be a case of where there is smoke, there is fire? Why do you think a Registrar that has a pretty good size of QS-9000 certified organizations would not be in the TS IATF approved list?"

I only meant that it was unfortunate that they didn't make the cut. Why they didn't make it is subjective opinions at best.

"Remember, the IATF is basically by-passing the accreditation process and approving Registrars directly. Why do you think this happened?"

That is a good question. I could speculate, but then that would be only my opinion. The 48 CB's surely can't be doing it for the money. At last count there was approximately 100 - 150 organizations registered to TS. Thats roughly 3 per CB. And having to maintain accreditation with RAB and the IATF might prove costly, especially if the TS certification process is stretched out to 2006.
And add to that the fact that the automakers will still buy your product whether you are TS or not.
Sounds like a win-lose situation.

Sam said:

Mike S,
Thanks for the research on PJR. I've also been curious as to why they are slammed so much.


Sam,

Any registrar that calls potential clients and informs them that if they buy a "package deal" of consulting and assessment services, then they are guaranteed to pass their certification audit is going to viewed as less than ethical. And PJR is guilty of this.

As long as you're happy with their services, then your only potential loss is through "guilt by association". It is possible that the validity of your certification could be questioned because of the reputation of the registrar.

I'm not questioning it, just pointing out that people who are aware of PJR's rep and who have an interest in your certification status might harbor suspicions. If this isn't a concern, then no harm no foul.

Lucinda said:

Sam,

Any registrar that calls potential clients and informs them that if they buy a "package deal" of consulting and assessment services, then they are guaranteed to pass their certification audit is going to viewed as less than ethical. And PJR is guilty of this.
Lucinda,

This is a pretty serious allegation IMO. Are you SURE you're not leaving anything out -- like the requirement that the company must agree to do everything PJ tells them to do? Your statement implies that as long as I agree to pay PJ the $ they guarantee I will get a cert even if no one in my plant follows any of the procedures and "majors" are everywhere. It sort of reminds me of the offer I saw where I can get (guaranteed!) a Ph.D. in whatever I want for a certain amount of $. (Maybe I should get one real quick and beat Randy to the Ph.D.:vfunny: )

BTW - Any luck gettin a new job?

"Sam,

Any registrar that calls potential clients and informs them that if they buy a "package deal" of consulting and assessment services, then they are guaranteed to pass their certification audit is going to viewed as less than ethical. And PJR is guilty of this."

Are you sure that PJR is the only registrar or CB that uses this approach?

"As long as you're happy with their services, then your only potential loss is through "guilt by association". It is possible that the validity of your certification could be questioned because of the reputation of the registrar."

With price being the #1 motivator, who would question the validity of a cert.

"I'm not questioning it, just pointing out that people who are aware of PJR's rep and who have an interest in your certification status might harbor suspicions. If this isn't a concern, then no harm no foul."

No concern. PJR has the accreditations necessary to do the job they are required to do.

Apparently there is some confusion as to the role a registrar or CB plays in the registration process.
Initially the reccommendation for registration is made soley by the lead auditor. This reccommendation is made to the registrar who in turn notifys the client. If the client is dissatisfied he can request a meeting with the registrar/CB and LA. Now if the registrar/CB trys to coerce the LA to revise there report, then yes I would say there is reason for concern.
Personnally I've never heard of this situation happening.

Mike, let me preamble my comments, stating that I am speaking about the process and NOT any specific Registrar or organization. I do not have ANY objective evidence of malpractice, by any Registrar. If I did, I would bring it to the appropriate Accreditation Agencies. Having said that, any certification body that infers "guaranteed" results by using a specific consultant, including a related body is in CLEAR VIOLATION of ISO Guide 62, the basis for IAF-signatories accreditation. See below for the IAF Guidance on ISO Guide 62

" . . .G.2.1.25. Activities under clause 2.1.2.o) of ISO/IEC Guide 62 by a related body and certification / registration should never be marketed together and nothing should be stated in marketing material or presentation, written or oral, to give the impression that the two activities are linked. It is the duty of the certification / registration body to ensure that none of its clients is given the impression that the use of such activities and certification / registration would bring any business advantage to the client so that the certification / registration remains, and is seen to remain, impartial.

G.2.1.26. Nothing should be said by a certification / registration body that would suggest that certification / registration would be simpler, easier or less expensive if any specified consultancy or training services were used. . . ."

The rules are clear. What is not clear is why, after so many rumours and hearsay, no Registrar has ever been dis-accredited? The accreditation bodies continuously state that they are not provided with tangible, irrefutable evidence of wrong doing that they can use. But, if there is so much smoke and we can't find the fire, shouldn't we change our detection system?

Sidney Vianna said:

Mike, let me preamble my comments, stating that I am speaking about the process and NOT any specific Registrar or organization. I do not have ANY objective evidence of malpractice, by any Registrar. If I did, I would bring it to the appropriate Accreditation Agencies. Having said that, any certification body that infers "guaranteed" results by using a specific consultant, including a related body is in CLEAR VIOLATION of ISO Guide 62, the basis for IAF-signatories accreditation. See below for the IAF Guidance on ISO Guide 62

" . . .G.2.1.25. Activities under clause 2.1.2.o) of ISO/IEC Guide 62 by a related body and certification / registration should never be marketed together and nothing should be stated in marketing material or presentation, written or oral, to give the impression that the two activities are linked. It is the duty of the certification / registration body to ensure that none of its clients is given the impression that the use of such activities and certification / registration would bring any business advantage to the client so that the certification / registration remains, and is seen to remain, impartial.

G.2.1.26. Nothing should be said by a certification / registration body that would suggest that certification / registration would be simpler, easier or less expensive if any specified consultancy or training services were used. . . ."

The rules are clear. What is not clear is why, after so many rumours and hearsay, no Registrar has ever been dis-accredited? The accreditation bodies continuously state that they are not provided with tangible, irrefutable evidence of wrong doing that they can use. But, if there is so much smoke and we can't find the fire, shouldn't we change our detection system?

Great stuff Sidney. Are you a lawyer? :vfunny: Mike, I have to call this a TKO. And PJ is not the only one who does this. :ko: :smokin:

Energy,

Being as dense as I am, I'm not 100% sure what you mean. Do you mean it is a TKO of PJ, guilty as charged?

Again, I've got no horse in this race, but I just wonder why, if the rules are so clear, and PJ's violation is so clear (to some) why, in this litigous society we're in today, hasn't even ONE of the many jealous competitors (who would stand to gain business) or any disgruntled employee or customer managed to prove ANY wrongdoing by PJ? So much smoke and no fire, indeed. I just don't get it (again).

I don't know if this is the right forum to mention this so I'll just go ahead with it.

We have been registered to ISO/QS-TE since October 2000. The QMS is audited semi-annually. So far I have had 4 different auditors performing the audits.

The first five audits went as expected, a couple of minors each time.

The closing meeting for the most recent audit was last night. It was a 'witness audit' - RAB auditor auditing the auditor. We came away with 2 majors and 12 minors. I am still shaking in the aftermath.

From all appearances, it was a witch hunt. The registrar in question has been discussed previously (I don't want to be held libel - seriously, I don't).

Some of the minors were legit, a contract review was not completed satisfactorily, and a piece of material in the shop wasn't tagged adequately. But both majors were written on 4.1 and 4.2!!! Complete breakdown of the system!

I am just beside myself right now...chuck the whole ISO/QS system...turn in my stack of NCRs...head into the mountains and become the 21st century version of Jeremiah Johnson.

Fortunately, my company is standing beside me, very supportive people. When my BP drops below 200/150 I'll begin drafting a customer satisfaction survey to our registrar and cc: RAB

-------

Creme de la creme....guess who just called offering consultation services? And it's not even 9:00 in the morning here!

What a racket these guys are in...self-perpetuating business...they're paid to create the problems and paid to fix the problems they have created.

-------

I could sure use some words of encouragement, positive strokes, slap in the face, a bucket of cold water reality, anything that will get me out this funk.

Thanks for your ear.

I would relaly like to know what recourse I may have...can these NCRs be challenged? Appealed?

Would a letter to the RAB/IAOB/IRCA etc. be of any good?

Thanks again.

I think it was just a coincidence...I hope it was coincidence...

I can't believe a registrar/consultant would be obvious. Or am I being naive?

PS: I'm looking for a new registrar as of this morning....any suggestions (QS/TE)?

Mike S. said:

Energy,

Being as dense as I am, I'm not 100% sure what you mean. Do you mean it is a TKO of PJ, guilty as charged?

Again, I've got no horse in this race, but I just wonder why, if the rules are so clear, and PJ's violation is so clear (to some) why, in this litigous society we're in today, hasn't even ONE of the many jealous competitors (who would stand to gain business) or any disgruntled employee or customer managed to prove ANY wrongdoing by PJ? So much smoke and no fire, indeed. I just don't get it (again).

My reference to a TKO is the showing of specific rules of engagement that registrars "shall" follow. Any defense of a Registrar who openly markets these services is "moot". I know of at least two more well known names out there who advertise similar deals. Disgruntled, employees? Jealous competitors? You don't need them. Just read the "published" advertising materials and it's easy to see any violation. Why haven't these guys been sued? I don't know. Maybe it's a "not deep enough pockets" thing for a potential plaintiff.
Maybe, the rules should be changed because a lot of Companies like the idea of getting a bigger bang for their buck and keep these guys in business.
Personally, I have no objection to it at all.
But, like a boxing match, there are rules. While I might want the boxers to kick each other in the ba**s, it is not allowed. TKO for Sidney:p :ko: :smokin:

Okay, Energy, I'll let you play referee on this one, and since it is ruled a TKO the judges are useless (smart move). Ya'll may be right that PJ is violating the rules, but for the life of me I still cannot understand why someone or ISO doesn't punish them if all of the da*ning evidence is so blatantly obvious in published materials. Didn't ISO just recently ask for just such evidence? Deep pockets or not, too many other registrars have too much to gain not to raise **** and/or sue to discredit the wrongdoers. And it seems to me ISO could get some easy points by flexing their muscles and winning an easy one. It just doesn't make any sense to me. But, I'm dense.:bonk:

Help me out here, Jim. Either I'm hallucinating (again) or I remember reading an article, discussed here in the Cove, about some governing body dealing with ISO or registrars, who was asking anyone who had knowledge of cert fraud to contact them and they would act. Do you know what I'm talking about?

As far as nobody caring enough -- wow. If I'm a legit supplier of a service and I find my competitors are cheating and breaking the rules in order to take away my business and grow theirs, I'm gonna complain long and loud to the relevant governing body - especially when I don't need CIA-caliber spies, I only need read and forward "published" advertising materials to prove their guilt . :confused:

Mike, there have been HUNDREDS of complaints about malpractice in this business, but no public execration of wrong doers, dis-accrediting procedures, etc…. The worst they get it (when caught) is a slap on the wrist. To be fair, a couple of years ago, a well known registrar had their accreditation suspended by the RvA, but nobody paid attention to that . . .

In this VERY thread there are VERY recent allegations of what seems to be a VERY ODD coincidence by a Registrar writing major NCNs in one day and a related body calling them the VERY NEXT day offering to "help"!!!!!! This is the kind of SMOKE I am referring to ….. When you add so many cases together, what is the natural, logical conclusion? Tell me.

I keep repeating myself in this forum. With so many audits being performed every day and so many rumours of frauds, scams, malpractice etc . . and NOBODY EVER losing their accreditation, where do you think this process is broken? Where is the police? Right now the police expects we to bring the criminal handcuffed, with the incriminating evidence catalogued, indexed, so they can have a slam dunk case.

Why don't we have cases of disaccreditation? Most people with evidence of malpractice are either ignorant about the conflict of interest issue (remember the question that initiated this thread?) or are basically accomplices in the scam and benefit from the cozy, improper relationship between consultants and registrars.

The other people are either too busy or do not want get involved in a litigious case. But I keep asking. Where is the police? I have hands on experience complaining about a competitor's misleading ad for 4 months, and the accreditation agency I am complaining to has not taken ANY actions.

When will the accreditation agencies be made accountable to anyone? May be it will take some more IATF-like situations before they have the resolve to change and really police and enforce the rules.

http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/commcentre/pressreleases/2002/Ref822.html

Sidney,

I don't claim to have the answers -- in fact just the opposite -- I have lots of questions. But no one has answered my questions to my satisfaction yet. This is not a complaint, as perhaps that is not even possible. I just have not come to a definite conclusion yet.

There are only so many possibilities: All cert agencies are 100% pure and following the rules to the letter of the law (if not the "intent"). Or... All cert agencies are impure to varying degrees so no one complains out of fear of getting caught themselves. Or... There are some really bad apples out there but most are quite legit. Or... The responsible oversight people are derelict in their duty. Or...

I have a gut feeling that, like so many other issues, the real truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. And, like so many other issues, not enough good people who know of the problems care enough to put forth the effort to make a difference.

Hey John,

If you're looking for a new Registrar, start with some of the guys that are here in the Cove like Sidney (DNV), or Rick Conover (Signature), or any of the others that may come here.

Just a suggestion.

Jim Wade said:

Mike

I have just asked myself "exactly what is the problem that is worrying Mike so much?". I'm not sure I have the answer to that question.

Let's do a FIVE WHYs on it (that simple yet effective technique developed by Yoko Ono ....what? .... o yes, by Taiichi Ohno)

Can you kick us off, Mike - what is the problem as you see it?

rgds Jim
I don't know that I'm "worried so much", Jim. Just curious. As I said, I don't have a horse in this race (at least not yet - maybe someday). I just got curious when I saw one of the top cert providers in the US being dam#ed as being grossly unethical to the degree that "everybody" knows it yet there are never any consequences. It reminds me of a mob operation, "everybody" knows who is doing the bad deeds but they fear doing anything about it. Why, in the case of PJ or others, are people afraid to stop their unethical behavior, if it exists so blatantly, I wondered? Does PJ have a goon squad, breaking the bones (or worse) of anyone who threatens to "sing"? :vfunny: Not likely, huh? I just figure if you have the proof, present it to the authorities if not the rest of the world, and if you have the proof and do not do anything about it then you have little room to complain. If you don't have the proof, don't say you do. Pretty simple, no?

Jim,

Are you trying to make a point or just exercising me for a little Monday fun? I think my position is pretty clear. Let's do a "5 whys" on why you are so concerned about my opinion on this subject that you keep asking me these "why" questions.:confused:

The governing body that was reference earlier in this thread is the Oversite Board. I've met a few of these characters and they take it pretty serious. I believe your going to see the listing of registrars slim down over the next year. As far as PJ goes, I thought it was common knowledge in the Quality business not to accept those calls.

Angela,

I hope you are right -- if there are registrars out there not playing by the rules they should be sanctioned appropriately.

Regarding your statement "As far as PJ goes, I thought it was common knowledge in the Quality business not to accept those calls", I have to wonder: Why do YOU think PJ is (supposedly) growing by leaps and bounds to the point where they are now the top registrar? Lots of companies must not know about this "common knowledge" you speak of. Or do they know of this "common knowledge" but they don't care? Or something else? What do you think? :confused:

My Bad!:bonk: I wasn't aware that they were the fastest growing registrar. Pretty sad that so many fall into the trap:( I don't have an answer for that Mike it either says that there are quite a few quality people who don't pay attentin (scary
) or that don't care:eek: Which seems worse to you? I've never met with one of their reps and never will. I've been doing this for seven years (more than some less than others) and I've always known about them. Guess I took it for granted that others did to. Shame on me, in the quality business, never take common sense for granted.:bonk:

I would also not recommend that anyone use TUV Product Services/Management Services, especially if you have any major customers that also contract with them. If you ever decide to leave them, they will make your life ****. The product Manager is a very petty person. I have probably said too much but oh well……. JMHO

Angela said:

I don't have an answer for that Mike it either says that there are quite a few quality people who don't pay attention (scary) or that don't care:eek: Which seems worse to you?

Angela,

Ever play Whack-a-Mole? :biglaugh:

Well, Mike, which one seems worse to you?:biglaugh: You go, Angela! Take no prisoners! Oh, I just fell out of my chair. :vfunny: Later, Y'all.
:ko: :smokin:

Energy, I have to say that you have a way of bringing a BIG smile to my face! Your replies are always so colorful!

Thank you

Energy,

That's twice! I'm gonna start calling you the "Post Doctor". But, if you're gonna do it, at least look at punctuation, too!:vfunny:

Angela, I think you are being naïve to think that we will see a crackdown and resulting cleansing of Registrars in 2003. At least, the last 10 years show ZERO, in terms of Registrars losing their accreditation. I don't know why we would see a change, next year.

In response to Jim, I believe that many people DO care. The reason we don't see a crackdown on malpractice is because there is too much burden, placed on the accusers to present evidence that is not easy to collect. For example, the case depicted in this thread of a Registrar writing majors in one day, just to be followed by a coincidental call from a related body, the next morning, offering to "help". How do you prove the connection? You need a sting operation a la "60 minutes". Also, the threat of costly law suits makes honest people think many times, before coming forward with evidence.

The same way the public backlash in the stock market is partially linked with the perceived failure for the market to police itself and the Security and Exchange Commission to act more harshly on the accounting firms that failed to develop more robust conflict of interest policies, we will see (more clearly) that the marketplace will place less and less confidence on third-party certificates unless transparency and integrity become prevalent. The fact that many organizations are undeservedly attaining and/or maintaining certification, by being either accomplices or victims of cozy, incestuous registrar/consultant relationships is eroding confidence in the value of the certificates, and the process, as a whole. This is the downward spiral I have been warning since 1994.

As the system stands now, only the Accreditation Agencies have the charter and authority to police this market and punish the violators. The fact that we have not seem more action there is concerning, in my opinion. I fully understand that they need factual evidence to dis-accredit anyone, and I even have ideas on how to get it, but it is imperative that the resolve and guts to disapprove chronic wrong-doers exists.

Sometimes I wonder if there might be a fundamental flaw in this accredited third-party certification process. The Accreditation Bodies (ABs) have to fund their own activities. They cover their expenses by charging fees and a percentage for each certificate, issued under their "oversight", to each accredited registrar. So, some people might think that the ABs would benefit from a large number of registrars and certificates, in order to keep their revenues steady and sufficient. Some might even think that the ABs would have little interest in disapproving registrars because that would mean loss of revenue for them. Others might think that we are killing the golden goose by not policing it to the extent we should . . . After all, when no one places confidence on "ISO 9000" certificates, AB's, registrars, consultants, even this Forum will be meaningless . . . .

Sidney Vianna said:

After all, when no one places confidence on "ISO 9000" certificates, AB's, registrars, consultants, even this Forum will be meaningless . . . .
Sidney,

You make some good points, but I disagree with this last part. This forum will not die if certification comes to an end, IMO, at least I would hope not. People will still need advice on how to set-up a good QMS and will have other quality-related questions, regardless.

But a "60 Minutes" expose' would be fun to watch, I imagine!
:vfunny: Anyone have inside access to Mike Wallace?

Opinionated maybe! Naive never! But I will give you prop's on the effort you put in that response.

Energy! Do you think that someone forgot to put the sugar in there wheaties??

Angela said:

Opinionated maybe! Naive never! But I will give you prop's on the effort you put in that response.

Energy! Do you think that someone forgot to put the sugar in their wheaties??

Angela,

Why, whatever do you mean? :vfunny: I will assume that it is in response to Sidney's last post. Unlike us windbags, Sidney doesn't post as much. But when he does, they are packed with good information. I still think he has been to Law School. :p "Nothing personal, just the facts, Maam". Anyway, the facts are as he sees them. The size of the post has very little to do with the responses anyone gets here, no matter what they say. You appear to be able to hang with the Cove Crew very well. Keep it up. ;) :ko: :smokin:

Energy, twice now you have called me a lawyer!:eek:

Man, you really know how to HURT people, but let's keep punches above the waist line, please :vfunny: ;)

He's right, Flip, that was pretty low. You're on Claes' watch list already, better tone it down!:vfunny: :rolleyes:

Mike S. said:

He's right, Flip, that was pretty low. You're on Claes' watch list already, better tone it down!:vfunny:

Sidney/Mike,

Could have been worse. I could have suggested that you may have been an Auditor. :rolleyes: But, your posts are too good for being one of those.:p I forgot about all those lawyer jokes. No offense intended. But, I put some sugar on those Wheaties, now that I had my early morning constitutional.

P.S. You have to admire Claes' style. You can almost hear the axe being sharpened in the background.

:vfunny: :ko: :smokin:

I have my issues with auditors but I do have some sympathy for them. Think about what they have to do for the audit now. You're paying them to come in and take enough notes and make enough observations to ensure the registration body feels they did a good enough job. That way they get their customers a certificate and themselves a paycheck, plus they have to temper it in order to keep you as a customer and to keep their certification. Talk about burning both ends!!!!
I don't think you'll see a crackdown, but you may see a reduction in the registrars allowed to perform certain audits (i.e. 16949). Plus as the B3 gain more influence as to who they'll recognize for what audits, you see changes.
The first registrar disciplined for misconduct will be opened up for lawsuit after lawsuit from their clients. All registrations will be questionable and it will dominoe from there. I, for one, don't want to see it.
I have dealt with PJ and the contact was similar to walking onto Slick Willey's Used Car Lot. Stay and listen too long and you're going to have a mess to clean up!!!! :eek: :confused: ;)

Actually Stew, when a registrar is "disciplined" it is done in secrecy. Their clients don't even know about it unless it affects their certification - which it doesn't in most cases. So lawsuits may be a stretch.

In the case of the very well known registrar who had their accreditation suspended by RVA a couple of years ago (which Sidney mentioned), only those clients who carried RVA solely (and not another accreditation as well) were truly affected and those were able to receive certificates bearing another accreditation mark instead. No problem. What was remarkable and admittedly gleeful :) was that the suspension was actually made public by RVA. Of course, RAB refused to discuss whether they were also investigating or taking action against the registrar, as it is their policy to never make such issues public. They don't tell or confirm if a registrar is under suspension or investigation.

As a consumer who is using a registrar's services, do you think it is fair to not know if your registrar is in violation or has been reprimanded by an accreditation body?? I think it is a huge crock for it to be kept secret, don't you?

To be honest Lucinda I don't really know and here's my reasoning.
If it is based on a couple auditors that I don't know - then no I don't think I want to know about it. If it was a systemic problem then I would want to know about it especially if another consumers registration was questioned. If it was due to the practice of the auditor used for our registration - again yes I would.
I think we would be getting into morallity issues to expect all registrars to "come clean" with every investigation. I respect the fact that RVA made public what happened to them, that couldn't have been easy.
I would suspect that most of us have been around long enough to know if our registrar and auditor is doing us justice or not. I don't want the prices to go up because they have to keep a lawyer on retainer to answer every complaint or challenge issued by a disgruntled client.
It's a nasty business, if you advertise too much and try to appease your clients you end up with a rep like PJ. If you're too hard and try to please the registration body you won't have many clients.
I think about looking over our internal auditors findings to figure out just what is working or not and how much personnality has to be weeded out. I wouldn't want to do that for a registration body when my business depended on it.
I guess all we can do is trust we made the correct choice and that the company we have gone with will have the intestinal fortitude to be up front with any issues.
Can you imagine the fallout if Enron was a registrar?????:frust:

Randy Stewart said:


The first registrar disciplined for misconduct will be opened up for lawsuit after lawsuit from their clients. All registrations will be questionable and it will dominoe from there. I, for one, don't want to see it. . . .
I guess all we can do is trust we made the correct choice and that the company we have gone with will have the intestinal fortitude to be up front with any issues.

Your reasoning is pretty flawed, Randy.

When Arthur Andersen was indicted and convicted, leading to it's demise, did the whole financial accounting system collapsed?

Your suggestion that, even when a Registrar is caught in a chronic situation of breaching the accreditation requirements not to suffer consequences, because the whole sector might fall apart, does not make ANY sense. Why would ALL certificates become questionable if a misbehaving registrar is punished? I simply don't follow your rationale.

Your position supports the cheaters and wrong doers. I really don't understand . . .

I have to agree with Lucinda. There should be a notification process regarding registrars that have been reprimanded. After all aren't we required to notify our registrar with 5 days if we are put on Q1 revocation etc.... The same thing should hold true for them. The cost that companies (who truly want to implement a sound QMS) put into certification is tremendous. I would like to know that my companies investment was protected in some way.

When Arthur Andersen was indicted and convicted, leading to it's demise, did the whole financial accounting system collapsed?
Do you really believe that all the other firms weren't put under a microscope? Do you honestly believe that Arthur Andersen is the only firm to look the other way??? Come on, look at what all has happened since then. Has it collapsed? NO, Would the registrars? NO, Would it cause changes and questions? HE_L YES!
Look at the dominoe effect after Enron, look at the Stock Market since. I know the stuff in the middle east isn't helping, but the lack of consumer confidence in the market has been documented. Is your 401K earning as much as it did 3 years ago? Tell me that the Arthur Andersen/Enron scandel didn't have an affect on a large scale.
Why would ALL certificates become questionable if a misbehaving registrar is punished?
Because if one is doing it how many others in the game are too?
A lot of people here in Michigan were questioning the comp package given to Nasser when he was let go. Now remember back to the K-mart stuff and all the questions that came out concerning the comp packages. I heard questions like "Why does anyone need to use the company jet to go to work? Why should a company with that big of a money problem have a private jet? I don't have answers to these, but there questions that were being asked by the media here. They were looking under all kinds of rocks. Next the comp packages were questioned by the courts, and the last word I had reduced.
A couple years ago the B3 told the registrars that they were still seeing bad product from registered companies and the performance of some registered companies was getting worse.
Part of the repurcussions from that was the Q1/probation notification requirement.
Can you see how it could trickle down? I'm not trying to say this is what would happen, it is my opinion people. I worked with the B3 for too long now to allow myself to think it would go away without further incident.

The cost that companies (who truly want to implement a sound QMS) put into certification is tremendous. I would like to know that my companies investment was protected in some way. My point exactly Angela. So if your registrar was found guilty of misconduct and you lost your cert, wouldn't your company try to get some money back?
It's just an opinion.:ko: :thedeal:

You can bet on it. If at all possible.

Stew,

RVA is an accreditation body, not a registrar - what they made public is that they were suspending the RVA accreditation of the registrar. That means that the registrar no longer had the RVA's blessing to issue certifications. But that registrar also carried the accreditation ("blessing") of other accreditation bodies so they could still issue accredited certificates, just not carrying the RVA logo while they were under suspension. If RAB or UKAS or any other accreditation body were also taking action against them for whatever it is that they did "wrong", then it was not made public knowledge. RAB was pointblank asked about it and responded that it was their policy to not inform the public of suspensions.

If a client company carrys a single accreditation mark on their certificate and that accreditation body suspends the accreditation of their registrar, then the client company would have to be informed by the registrar of the suspension. This is a contractual item. If they were inclined to sue, they would already have the information at hand. I haven't seen a blizzard of lawsuits. This is why: What a registar would do is say "Look, we're having some problems with XX accreditation body right now so to protect you we're going to issue you a new certificate carrying YY's accreditation logo instead. This is just a temporary measure and we are just making sure that our clients don't experience any hardships while we get this technicality straightened out". If the client company has more than one accreditation mark on their certificate (I had some clients with 7 of them), then it didn't really matter if one of the accreditations was suspended at any given time because the others were still valid. The client did not have to be contacted.

As far as whether you would want to know about it or not, the accreditation bodies don't suspend an accreditation over minor singular incidents. They bend over so far backward in giving registrars the benefit of a doubt, that should they actually penalize a registar, you can believe that there is a very good irrefutable reason indeed! And you would (should?) want to know about it. Unfortunately, this information is just not made available to you.

It is disheartening to the registrars who work very hard to make sure that all t's are crossed and all i's are dotted and that everything is done according to procedure with every variation fully justified and documented and reported (when required) to the accreditation body, to be essentially working in vain because in a business where the only value is in the reputation of the work that is provided there are companies who do not work as diligently who manage to succeed and thrive.

Oh boy. Sorry for that soapbox oratory. Like everyone else who believes in the "quality" of their product, I'm screaming against the wind about those things that frustrate me because not everyone sees the same value or quality markings. Just one of those character traits of a Quality Person, right?;)

Thanks for the info. I still think it's one of those "If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question" thing and way too political for me. I don't believe we'll ever see it change, it's just too big anymore and the ramifications would run too deep. :agree:

Mike S. said:

Angela,

I hope you are right -- if there are registrars out there not playing by the rules they should be sanctioned appropriately.

Regarding your statement "As far as PJ goes, I thought it was common knowledge in the Quality business not to accept those calls", I have to wonder: Why do YOU think PJ is (supposedly) growing by leaps and bounds to the point where they are now the top registrar? Lots of companies must not know about this "common knowledge" you speak of. Or do they know of this "common knowledge" but they don't care? Or something else? What do you think? :confused:

Mike S.,

I got the "call" yesterday, with a promise to receive a package very soon. It is interesting to note that this wasn't a "cold call". Someone here, my previous Boss, had contacted them a long time ago and they were just "following up" on our progress. I will study the literature to see if there are any guarantees cited and how the guarantee would be assured. A few years ago, another previous supervisor from another life, showed me a VHS presentation from them, from the man himself. I don't remember any "conflict of interest" message, but I was instructed to not answer the phone if it was from them, again. He said they were pestering him.
As it so happened, he was out and we had a temporary switchboard person who put the call through to me. It was a female that most people in the office knew by name because of the repeated calls. I called back and asked to speak the "Manager" in charge. I questioned their tactics and told him that it will never work at this company. He professed that this was the not the way they operated and I gave him the name of the person. He said, "She should know better", apologized and the calls stopped.
It was very aggressive behavior and I suspect that it was $$ commission driven. I think that Angela's statement about "Q" people not answering "those calls", may be as a result of the "pesty" marketing tactic, not necessarily because of the reputation for shady services. I will post again after reading the literature.
Bet you thought this was over. Not a chance. :vfunny: :ko: :smokin:

We look forward to your report, Energy. Maybe this will be the start of a new career for you: Energy - Investigative Journalist!:eek:

Mike S. said:

We look forward to your report, Energy. Maybe this will be the start of a new career for you: Energy - Investigative Journalist!:eek:

Mike S..

To make a long story short, I allowed the PJ Rep. to stop by the office and drop off his literature vs. sending it by mail. He was given 5 minutes on a very busy day (this Tuesday past) to do his thing. No pressure, no promises and no mention of "extra services" such as this thread has pointed to. We'll digest the material after the holidays for a hint of impropiety. It may just be a case of Chicken Little yelling the "The sky is falling, the sky is falling" and the barnyard animals scurrying for cover. :vfunny: I promise, like the Fox News network, fair and balanced reporting. :rolleyes: :ko: :smokin:

Energy,

During the PJ rep's. visit I hope you looked carefully for any evidence of small horns protruding from the forehead (perhaps hidden by a bad toupee)!:vfunny:

We look forward to your further analysis.

Mike S. said:

Energy,

During the PJ rep's. visit I hope you looked carefully for any evidence of small horns protruding from the forehead (perhaps hidden by a bad toupee)!:vfunny:

We look forward to your further analysis.

Mike S.,

Unfortuntely, PJ's material is still on what used to be my desk covered in tears stain. Who knows, maybe I get another package while I'm changing his oil in Jiffy Lube! :rolleyes: :smokin:

Yes...Yes

What we need is more punishment!

Lets publically flail those that step out of line!!

Break out the thumbscrews. Make some examples. Get everyone to toe the mark (not to be confused with good ol' Marc who might enjoy some toeing).:biglaugh:
Ah! A bondage fan!

Also see:

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

Gee, after reading some of these posts, maybe IAF (International Accreditation Forum) should require their ABs (Accrediting Bodies) to post accreditation suspension the way ILAC (International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation) requires their ABs to do.

Hershal

Sounds like a good idea to me, but similar to most professional societies things like that are typically hidden as far as possible and 'self regulated'.

The Accreditation Bodies do POST the information in their website.

Concerning TRANSPARENCY in the whole process, it will not happen if the users of the certificates never demand it.

I keep saying: we need accountability and transparency for this whole process to be sustainable and value-added.

Outstanding comment!

Hershal

I read alot and somehow I think it is still a "closed community" with people that want/or need to know not having easy access to the relevent information.

For 2 years I was receiving weekly faxes from a registrar and then they quit. In the meantime I changed computers/phones and have recently started to receive the same "promotional" faxes.

Kind of funny, a consultant that wants to help me register, even though I consult also. Although I do not offer registration services they just love to get in touch with me.

No, not PJ

Al...

Last week our organization's president handed me a FAX he received. The first sentece claimed:
"We offer Businesses a complete TurnKey (On-Site) ISO Quality System that we guarantee will lead to a successful Audit and ISO Registration by the Registrar of your choice."
Thankfully, he did not take the FAX too seriously as I am still employed instead of this consulting service that offers such a wonderful deal. Afer all, the FAX claimed they could do it in under 45 days. I have been at my job for 1 year.

Nevertheless, I find it hard for any consultant to "guarantee" registration with any registrar. I can understand guaranteed compliance. I cannot understand guaranteed registration.

Jaime E. Zepeda

I read that they did not give a "time frame" for registration, just they will be there. Beware!!

Al...

Last week our organization's president handed me a FAX he received. The first sentece claimed:
"We offer Businesses a complete TurnKey (On-Site) ISO Quality System that we guarantee will lead to a successful Audit and ISO Registration by the Registrar of your choice."
Thankfully, he did not take the FAX too seriously as I am still employed instead of this consulting service that offers such a wonderful deal. Afer all, the FAX claimed they could do it in under 45 days. I have been at my job for 1 year.

Nevertheless, I find it hard for any consultant to "guarantee" registration with any registrar. I can understand guaranteed compliance. I cannot understand guaranteed registration.

Jaime E. Zepeda

1- "guarantee will lead to a successful Audit". Not surprising. I believe most audits are successful.

2- "ISO Registration by the Registrar of your choice." Not surprising either. To achieve registration all you need to do is respond favorabley to the auditors' NCR's. Of course if they are majors, then a re-visit is required. But then again the consultant doesn't guarantee "no majors".

3- "do it in under 45 days." But they don't guarantee it.

Last week our organization's president handed me a FAX he received....
The first tipoff should be that it's probably a Junk FAX - Outlawed in my neck of the woods I believe - or nationally or something.

To me a Junk FAX is like receiving an e-mail promoting a 'natural male enhancer'. Circular file.

As my Pappy used to say, and everyone hear has heard many, many times:

"If it seems too good to be true, it probably isn't true."

We have been registered to ISO/QS-TE since October 2000. The QMS is audited semi-annually. So far I have had 4 different auditors performing the audits.

The first five audits went as expected, a couple of minors each time.

The closing meeting for the most recent audit was last night. It was a 'witness audit' - RAB auditor auditing the auditor. We came away with 2 majors and 12 minors. I am still shaking in the aftermath.

From all appearances, it was a witch hunt. The registrar in question has been discussed previously (I don't want to be held libel - seriously, I don't).

Some of the minors were legit, a contract review was not completed satisfactorily, and a piece of material in the shop wasn't tagged adequately. But both majors were written on 4.1 and 4.2!!! Complete breakdown of the system!

I am just beside myself right now...chuck the whole ISO/QS system...turn in my stack of NCRs...head into the mountains and become the 21st century version of Jeremiah Johnson.

Fortunately, my company is standing beside me, very supportive people. When my BP drops below 200/150 I'll begin drafting a customer satisfaction survey to our registrar and cc: RAB

-------

Creme de la creme....guess who just called offering consultation services? And it's not even 9:00 in the morning here!

What a racket these guys are in...self-perpetuating business...they're paid to create the problems and paid to fix the problems they have created.

I think it was just a coincidence...I hope it was coincidence...

I can't believe a registrar/consultant would be obvious. Or am I being naive?
You were being VERY naive.....

You were being VERY naive.....

I don't know if John is still around here...

His post was from 6 November 2002....;)

Stijloor.

His post was from 6 November 2002....;)I know. That is why I said he WAS being naive. But are we naive to think that these shady practices of being written up one day for ineffective internal audits, and receiving an unsolicited call the next day for a course on effective internal audits are no longer happening?

Many auditors also offer consulting work. While some are stupid to a point of blatant conflict of interest, such as giving two business cards away, one as the auditor and one as a consultant, others are more subtle. They write up a company and tell another friendly consultant that company needs help. Next week, the friend returns the favor. Nobody is policing that. If people like John does not voice such concerns, nobody talks about it.

I know. That is why I said he WAS being naive. But are we naive to think that these shady practices of being written up one day for ineffective internal audits, and receiving an unsolicited call the next day for a course on effective internal audits are no longer happening?

Many auditors also offer consulting work. While some are stupid to a point of blatant conflict of interest, such as giving two business cards away, one as the auditor and one as a consultant, others are more subtle. They write up a company and tell another friendly consultant that company needs help. Next week, the friend returns the favor. Nobody is policing that. If people like John does not voice such concerns, nobody talks about it.

Has this been your personal experience? Really? I believe that most auditors are very ethical people who do the right thing. I also believe that what you stated is currently more an exception rather then the rule.

Stijloor.

I know. That is why I said he WAS being naive. But are we naive to think that these shady practices of being written up one day for ineffective internal audits, and receiving an unsolicited call the next day for a course on effective internal audits are no longer happening?

Many auditors also offer consulting work. While some are stupid to a point of blatant conflict of interest, such as giving two business cards away, one as the auditor and one as a consultant, others are more subtle. They write up a company and tell another friendly consultant that company needs help. Next week, the friend returns the favor. Nobody is policing that. If people like John does not voice such concerns, nobody talks about it.


There are a lot of things that are unethical, but there are also a lot of things that are ethical and proper. I think it hinges on whether you are serving the client, or focused on your own needs or gains. I do work for clients, they come to public trainings sometimes, They can access tips or tools and benchmarks. But, the focus has to be serving the client, not what can I get out of them. And, that is where the ethics are very important.

I believe that most auditors are very ethical people who do the right thing. I also believe that what you stated is currently more an exception rather then the rule.I would agree with you that, probably, such practice is not done by the majority of auditors who also consult, but neither one of us could tell how rampant this breach of ethics really is. many auditors who also consult (or consultants who also audit) network a lot and many practice this "scratch my back and I will scratch yours" approach. And nobody polices it. It would be interesting to find out if any Cover has ever been subjected to this. Being written up one day and getting a cold call from someone offering to assist with that "type of problem" the next day.

I would agree with you that, probably, such practice is not done by the majority of auditors who also consult, but neither one of us could tell how rampant this breach of ethics really is. many auditors who also consult (or consultants who also audit) network a lot and many practice this "scratch my back and I will scratch yours" approach. And nobody polices it. It would be interesting to find out if any Cover has ever been subjected to this. Being written up one day and getting a cold call from someone offering to assist with that "type of problem" the next day.


You make a valid point. However, let's be clear, "offering" teachingor consulting services is still much different than an inference that they really must consider hiring such a service...

I would agree with you that, probably, such practice is not done by the majority of auditors who also consult, but neither one of us could tell how rampant this breach of ethics really is. many auditors who also consult (or consultants who also audit) network a lot and many practice this "scratch my back and I will scratch yours" approach. And nobody polices it. It would be interesting to find out if any Cover has ever been subjected to this. Being written up one day and getting a cold call from someone offering to assist with that "type of problem" the next day.

All,

Registrars (and their auditors) that provide advice/training so the systems they certify depend to some extent on them for that conformity are undermining their independence and hence the value of their certificate.

Of course, any consultant that receives a kick-back of any kind for recommending a registrar to their client has an improper relationship with that registrar in the minds of their clients. The management systems consultant should instead be assisting their client with development of the criteria for selecting the registrar.

Registrar selection criteria may include:


Employs certified lead auditors (of top management calibre) who would not think also of selling their consulting or training services;
Fully accredited (as a registrar and for that industry);
Independent registrar that adds value with audits against approved service specifications (including well-planned investigations and well-crafted nonconformity statements to fulfill agreed audit objectives);
Independent registrar that refuses to provide advice (or advisory devices such as OFI's) thereby not concealing system weaknesses;
Independent registrar that protects the intellectual property of past and current clients (their auditors would not even think of saying what they have seen work elsewhere - another advisory device); and
Respected by our customers (well known and well thought of because the registrar explains the value of their certificates in meaningful terms to the customers of their clientele).


Do customers want the certificate more than they want a management system free of significant weaknesses? If so they may settle for just 1 or 2 of these six registrar selection criteria.:rolleyes:

John

Happily, John, my CB provides all you've listed........

Thanks for pointing them out for the folks who are (still) unsure of the criteria they should use in selection!

Most interesting discussion, thank you for the different points of view. The registrar that I work for has found that our large, multi-national customers expect (demand) that best practices (without naming names) and OFI's are shared with them, so that they can adapt and improve their knowledge base and systems accordingly. Auditors get to see a wide variety of systems and practices, so why shouldn't a "partner approach" be allowed, as long as they do not cross the line into consulting. Am I correct that, consulting is finding the problems and telling them how to fix it and that auditing is telling them what is nonconforming and conforming, but not how ot fix it? Or is that too simplistic? Or is it like everything else in life, one bad apple will spoil it for everyone anyway, so outlaw it right from the get go? I am not an auditor and haven't been out there in the trenches...I'm just asking for opinions and reasons. Thank you!

Most interesting discussion, thank you for the different points of view. The registrar that I work for has found that our large, multi-national customers expect (demand) that best practices (without naming names) and OFI's are shared with them, so that they can adapt and improve their knowledge base and systems accordingly. Auditors get to see a wide variety of systems and practices, so why shouldn't a "partner approach" be allowed, as long as they do not cross the line into consulting. Am I correct that, consulting is finding the problems and telling them how to fix it and that auditing is telling them what is nonconforming and conforming, but not how ot fix it? Or is that too simplistic? Or is it like everything else in life, one bad apple will spoil it for everyone anyway, so outlaw it right from the get go? I am not an auditor and haven't been out there in the trenches...I'm just asking for opinions and reasons. Thank you!

For starters, obtain ISO 17021 and look at the following clauses:

4.2 Impartiality
5.2 Management of Impartiality
That may clarify....

Stijloor.

Most interesting discussion, thank you for the different points of view. The registrar that I work for has found that our large, multi-national customers expect (demand) that best practices (without naming names) and OFI's are shared with them, so that they can adapt and improve their knowledge base and systems accordingly. Auditors get to see a wide variety of systems and practices, so why shouldn't a "partner approach" be allowed, as long as they do not cross the line into consulting. Am I correct that, consulting is finding the problems and telling them how to fix it and that auditing is telling them what is nonconforming and conforming, but not how ot fix it? Or is that too simplistic? Or is it like everything else in life, one bad apple will spoil it for everyone anyway, so outlaw it right from the get go? I am not an auditor and haven't been out there in the trenches...I'm just asking for opinions and reasons. Thank you!

RegistrarGirl

Because an auditor's sharing of the intellectual property of his or her other auditee's system and its processes contravenes clause 7.5.4 of ISO 9001:2008 quite apart from the ethics.

Such sharing of "what I have seen work elsewhere" may also cause some auditees not to trust auditors with their so-called "best practices".

Other auditees however do expect their auditors to act as a conduit of confidential information about their competitors' processes.

If the auditor responds out of a desire to help, these shortcut "answers" also weaken the system's ability to continually improve performance.

No system should depend on its auditor for its performance.

Instead the auditor is paid to ask questions that result in the auditee strengthening their system's ability to solve problems (instead of stealing "solutions") and design processes to make its customers more successful (instead mimicking its competitors).

John
"stroke the ego of an auditor and you'll get a consultant"

RegistrarGirl

Because an auditor's sharing of the intellectual property of his or her other auditee's system and its processes contravenes clause 7.5.4 of ISO 9001:2008 quite apart from the ethics.

Such sharing of "what I have seen work elsewhere" may also cause some auditees not to trust auditors with their so-called "best practices".

Other auditees however do expect their auditors to act as a conduit of confidential information about their competitors' processes.

If the auditor responds out of a desire to help, these shortcut "answers" also weaken the system's ability to continually improve performance.

No system should depend on its auditor for its peformance.

Instead the auditor is paid to ask questions that result in the auditee strengthening their system's ability to solve problems (instead of stealing "solutions") and design processes to make its customers more successful (instead mimicking its competitors).

John
"stroke the ego of an auditor and you'll get a consultant"

Very well put John!

I've never quite understood (the validity of) the idea that a CB auditor would be asked for (or indeed volunteer) information regarding practices they'd seen in other places. The contextual information regarding a tip/tool/technique etc. -which may be very significant to its success - is often lost and if they spend a lot of time explaining, then IMHO that's consulting!

I'm not saying improvements cannot be found by CB auditors - indeed many of my colleagues do this - however, if the idea becomes to expect them to 'share' what they've seen, or becomes a significant input to identifying improvements, then we are in danger of undermining the whole certification process. It's bizarreI know, but would a business actively seek input for product improvements from the QC folks in other companies? I don't think so....!

Do customers want the certificate more than they want a management system free of significant weaknesses?Unfortunately, many registrants focus on attaining and maintaining "the certificate", because that represents the ticket to trade. Many are not interested in auditor's feedback of any kind, other than "your system is being recommended for continued certification"...