This question is as old as ISO 9k itself or even older i think...

My opinion is that consultant dont have to be an EXPERT, but he definately must KNOW the industry, main problems, main processes of the enterprise he consults.

With respect to ISO 9001, QS-9000, ISO 14001, etc., I used to believe this - and in fact insisted on auditors having direct experience in the field. I was a strict resume checker in the early years of ISO.

But after about 10 years of doing the dance, I have to say it depends upon the person. I've now done a number of industries I have had absolutely no work experience in at all. Just a year ago I did an insurance company - as an example. Neither the auditors, nor the RAB witness auditor, had any industry experience at all either. Everything worked out fine. See http://Elsmar.com/pdf_files/FWSC/

I don't think this is typically the case, but often is. The key is being able to understand ISO as basic business practices and being able to look at a business and be able to equate the requirements of the standard(s) with what the company does and how they operate. With experience comes some ability to do this.

That said, I surely don't think direct experience within an industry is a bad idea. However - direct industry experience does not a good consultant make!!! (with respect to ISO 9001, QS-9000, ISO 14001, etc.). :thedeal:

Bravo Marc.....

I advertise myself as a Business Management Consultant that "specializes" in 14K, OSHA, EPA, DOT, OHSAS, etc.

The key words I think are "Business Management". That's why I did an MBA instead of a MS in Safety. I wanted to be a more rounded person offering services, and to do so I needed to expand my marketability.

A good knowledge of the system can allow you to go into any environment and be of assistance. In cases of new environments, many times a person with no previous experience will ask the questions that are never asked, and offer solutions that were never thought of before because of a fresh, unhindered by experience prejudices, approach.

This is in large part why I call my 'company' Cayman Business Systems' and state that that I specialize in business standards compliance.

Of course, I personally think I'm pretty good at what I do (not to mention I'm relatively inexpensive).

I believe the consultant must be an expert…in something! I specialize in ISO 9K, 14K, QS…etc. If I need to know how my area relates to the processes of the client. Marc, I take it your insurance experience was ISO related (you mentioned RAB). Your success was based on your expertise in ISO, not the insurance industry. If you were consulting on rate determination, you might have had a much more difficult time. (although I am confident you would have exceeded your customer’s expectations because you are, as we all know unmatched in abilities).;)

Consultants need to know either the process, or the subject matter, perhaps both.

Dave B (the other Dave)

I was called a "Corporate Prostitute" last week.:eek:

:bigwave:

Is that better or worse than being reffered to as "The ISO Pimp"?

Originally posted by db

I believe the consultant must be an expert…in something! I specialize in ISO 9K, 14K, QS…etc. If I need to know how my area relates to the processes of the client. Marc, I take it your insurance experience was ISO related (you mentioned RAB). Your success was based on your expertise in ISO, not the insurance industry. If you were consulting on rate determination, you might have had a much more difficult time. (although I am confident you would have exceeded your customer’s expectations because you are, as we all know unmatched in abilities). ;)

Consultants need to know either the process, or the subject matter, perhaps both.

Dave B (the other Dave)I understand where you're coming from, but you're looking at 2 aspects. Consulting with respect to ISO vs. with respect to specific, individual processes. ISO wise I don't care what your processes are - you can explain them to me but typically that's easy stuff.

Yes - I consult with respect to compliance to business standards. I wouldn't begin to 'consult' with respect to specific, individual processes that I don't have direct experience in.

You are correct - I would not be the appropriate person to hire as a consultant to address problems with specifics such as 'rate determination' in the insurance industry. :thedeal:

Bottom line is I agree with you. :agree:

Originally posted by SteelMaiden

Is that better or worse than being reffered to as "The ISO Pimp"?Surely you've noticed my :thedeal: 'trademark' which I use to end most of my posts...

Doesn't bother me. Pimp. Prostitute. Who cares - as long as you give a customer (client) value and the customer is happy. :thedeal:

If we keep the audit objective as "compliance" then it really doesn't matter whether the auditor is knowledgeable about the industry or not. However if we look at audit an an oppurtunity to identify improvements in the system then an industry expert adds lot more value compared to an outsider.

Cheers
Neelanshu:)

Originally posted by Neelanshu Varma

If we keep the audit objective as "compliance" then it really doesn't matter whether the auditor is knowledgeable about the industry or not. However if we look at audit an an oppurtunity to identify improvements in the system then an industry expert adds lot more value compared to an outsider.

Cheers
Neelanshu :)I agree for the most part. The problem is the 'opportunity for improvement' issue. If we're talking process issues an industry expert is a great help. But - where do you cross the line between consulting / auditing and what part does this play in reality? Some registrars play up the 'opportunities for improvement' issue but I personally believe it's more hype than anything. Heck - there are a lot of 'outsiders' who can walk through a plant and offer up 'opportunities for improvement' as they see them (and different auditors will typically see different 'opportunities for improvement').

As an example, I once had a client and an auditor wrote up an 'opportunity for improvement' which involved his belief that a person doing some soldering of through-hole components on a board should have a 'calibrated' iron. We could show through, for example, the nonconformance system that solder joints were a very, very unusual failure mode and almost all were from wave-solder processes - not through-hole soldering. We practically had to beat the guy with a stick to get him to stop telling the client how to run their operations, where work instructions are needed, what should be calibrated and such.

I want a registrar's auditor to come in and verify compliance to the standard - not to tell me (my client, actually) how to do everything 'right'. If I want process and/or systems consulting, I'll hire a consultant specifically for that purpose. :thedeal:

Whoa !! hold the phone - :confused:
I'm somewhat late in posting this but go back to the title of the thread itself.... Can someone define "EXPERT" ......

lets say.. I've worked in/around/ and with piecwork processes welding & tractor/combine parts machining for 34 plus years - am I an "expert"? (If so maybe I should change my business card :D )

On the other side of the issue.... We have an employee here that believes he is "an expert" in the use of a particular scheduling Theroy application "tool" because he attended a 2 week seminar)

I really believe "comon sense and Practice - in auditing" are much more important than the consideration of being an Expert (however it is defined.) Knowledge of business & industry practices are "helpful" and should fall into the "transferable skills" area.

Have you heard the definition of Expert?

The word is made up of two parts: "Ex" as in "Has been" and "Spurt" which everyone knows is a drip under pressure. I would not like to be described as a combination of these two!

But seriously .... I too am a consultant, I too was an auditor and I too have been the first auditor in to a particular field. I agree with Marc, it depends on the individual. I know of some auditors with many years experience and you take them out of their direct area of expertise and the quality of the audit goes out the window. I know of other auditors who I would trust in any situation and who would get to the important aspects of the client's business and tell them a thing or two about how well they manage quality. As might be expected 99% of us fall between these two extremes.

For consultants the key is not to go in with ears closed and mouth open but to do the reverse. It doesn't take long to understand what is important to the client and to then "map" the processes to the requirements of ISO 9001, 14001 etc.

The consultant has expertise in system standards, business environment, people skills and uses these to deliver the services that meet the customer requirements.

I Don't believe that the consultant should be the Expert. That is what the Management is for. After all, they know their business better than most and it is those people who need to make the system work for them and assist the consultant in documenting it.

I have to laugh when I see job ads asking for someone who has specific skills in one area to get a job in documenting a system. That's baloney!!! Helpful but certainly not essential.

Give me a business, any business, and I am sure I could set up a respectful system that they could easily use and benefit from.

:p

To me, the 'trick' is to be able to see what they have, to understand whether what they have is working and integrate/tailor if/where necessary. Then develop and integrate what they have to have but do not have.

That's why I'm not big on canned procedures and software. As I always say - One size does NOT fit all!

Well said Carl.

Agree entirely - the only expertise they need are in the standard and auditing.

I must agree totally.
The ONLY job of an auditor is to verify that the system meets the standards BASIC REQUIREMENTS!!

I am concerned about threads I see here explaining how an auditor wrote a finding, not because an element wasn't there, but because he thought it could be done better. That is none of his business. He is there to audit, not consult.

Is this how the RAB courses are taught? That an auditor can pass judgement on HOW you comply? I thought the job was to determine whether they DO or DO NOT comply period.

My credentials are a lowly little ASQ CQA and I was taught that is essential that you keep your opinions to yourself. One of the main reasons for this is that you often have access to propietary info and if you disclose, even inadvertently, this information to a competitor then you could find yourself liable.

Whew. I don't know what got into me there, but it sure seems that some auditors need to be reined in.

One again thanks for the vent space.:truce:

James

This thread seems to be getting unravelled!

I thought the line was whether consultants needed to be experts, the last few posts are about keeping the auidtor in a box! That's fine if that's what you want to do so, personally I have had a lot of good input from auditors, tapping into their experience. Also as an auditor I have given clients the benefit of my experience (both as an auditor and in previous work, I won't bore you with the CV) but only when they have asked or I think they might take the comments in the spirit in which they were intended.

One of the reasons I moved out of auditing was to get the freedom to advise a company as a company employee or now as a consultant on how their systems might work for them.

Keep up the good work.

Any contemporary comments? :rolleyes:

Hi All,

I think that a consultant and for that matter a registrar (auditor) should be matched to the industry. I'd like to know that they understand the industry, in some way. The purely business functions of the management system should be known by all but I am talking about the processes. Is a person that specialises in abattoirs going to understand the open cut mining industry? No.
We have specialised audits each year from the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, because we manufacture some products that are used in the agricultural industry, and all of the auditors are Chemists yet they have to review all of our processes along the same lines as the ISO auditors. Our ISO registrar matches our auditor to our industry and we rarely have trouble but the 'Chemists' cause us all kinds of headaches because they do not understand the industry (IMO) plus they HAVE to be rotated after two audits so we can't train them over time to understand...Very frustrating.
Our internal auditors must have Trade qualifications (mechanical or electrical) and industry experience (at least five years). It is in their job description...so why should we not also require our consultant to have experience. I am not saying they should be an EXPERT only in one field rather they should have experience in many fields. This seems to be a bit of a catch 22. You can't be employed unless you have experience but you can't get experience unless you are employed.

Greg B

Hello friends,

I am new on the forum. Let me share my views on the subject.

I believe that a consultant need not be an expert on the industry, but some knowledge about production realization processes is necessary. It helps him in designing proper process controls to give productivity advantage to the client company.

For some years before I became a consultant I was faced with the need to assist suppliers of many shades and colours in a variety of industries in which I was not trained and certainly not expert. Since becoming a consultant in 1983 that situation has prevailed from time to time: clients with whose business sector and technology I am unfamiliar have requested and received help.

As many on the Cove are aware, I have a particular approach to quality and especially "process" control. I use my task elements, developed way back in the early 70s and they have never let me down. Of course, it is important to get to know something of the jargon, legislative concerns (product liability issues especially) and so forth. Some research and homework is needed to come up to speed. But in every case my clients have been most helpful in this regard.

The key thing is to know what are the cardinal matters: the client's own people can provide the details and be guided accordingly.

So, to answer the question, it has not been necessary to be an expert in the client's field. My clients have ranged from banking to foundries to food to electronics and computers to airlines and so on. Thankfully, they have been pleased and returned.

Dear AllanJ, I fully agree with you.

The prospective client company has already developed required core strtength in its product realization processes. To fill up the gap related to system management processes, the compoany hires me as its consultant. I may or may not have an expet knowledge about comapny's products or services and how they are realized. But me as consulatnt for management systems and company's personnel form a good team. Together we design an adequate management system and implement it in an effective manner.

During my introductory training, I clearly tell the people that I and they are both trainer and trainee. I will learn from them about their processes, and they will learn from me about my processes. During this give and take, we learn about the entire system. In this manner today I have attained sufficient knowledge about my clients' business.

So it has never been necessary for me to be an expert in the client's field.

It depends how the consultant presents themself. For instance a "Business Consultant" should be able to advise the client on running their business and, therefore, must be knowledgable about the specific sector. However a "Management Systems Consultant" should know about the management systems but not necessarily the specific sector and as a result the services are not prescriptive and are more facilitation.

in chinese "听你们一席话，胜读十年书啊“:)

Welcome to the Cove, stillwaterscheng :bigwave: I learn so MUCH from your discussions Glad to hear it, and the fact is that so do we: We learn a lot from taking part in the discussions, so please join in. :agree:

/Claes