Does anyone out there view their registrar as a supplier ?

If so what supplier assessment do you conduct ?

I think its a great idea to go and audit your registrar - is this just stupidly asking for trouble, or could there be any real benefit (other than personal pleasure) ?

I think its a great idea to go and audit your registrar - is this just stupidly asking for trouble, or could there be any real benefit (other than personal pleasure) ?I think it's a great idea, but not always practical. I can just see it now, telling the boss I have to make a trip east to audit our registrar- I'm sure I would get "What - are you NUTS?" To which I would just politely nod my head.

CarolX

The registrar supplies a service that is directly related to the quality/management system. I would surely have them on the supplier list and let them hang themselves if they don't answer you supplier questionairre or whatever tool you use to monitor suppliers.

My not so humble opinion!:(

Originally posted by Al Dyer
The registrar supplies a service that is directly related to the quality/management system. I would surely have them on the supplier list and let them hang themselves if they don't answer you supplier questionairre or whatever tool you use to monitor suppliers.
My not so humble opinion!:( They may be on your supplier's list, but to atagonize them is akin to asking a policeman to see his identification as he orders you out of your car because you're naked in a school zone! If it's the first year of a three year contract, it's akin to the above, except you are also holding hands with your cocker spaniel who is dressed up in a red babydoll nightgown. Unless, you have lots of cash to get another registrar and go for the whole certification again, be careful about beating them up like you would do to your normal suppliers. When I choose a registrar, they will be treated like a Customer, no matter who's paying. No one is squeaky clean and you may need some cooperation. You get what you give. JMHO.
:ko::smokin:

A relationship with your suppliers can be as productive and co-operative as the relationship you would like to have with your customers.

But yes I am sure it would be seen as antagonistic, and would probably deteriorate after a short while, even with the best intentions.

I guess it is right to treat them as a customer as they are in effect the customers representative (even if they have no idea what the customer actually wants of the product).

Still its nice to dream.

Yes, you should treat your Registrar as a supplier. You should put them through the same qualifying process you would any critical supplier. When I do certification/surveillance audits, I check to see that the registrar is on the approved supplier list, if not I let them know they should be. Should you audit them, IMHO I would say no. You are already paying enough for some of these registrars services, let them come to you. Should you interview them have them visit you, have them fill out a supplier qualification form yes! If they see it an antagonizing then I would not use them. Yes, it is a delicate relationship, but they are not special. If they screw up call them on it, they would you wouldn’t they. I let our current registrar know in no uncertain terms they are not meeting our expectations, and that I am very unhappy with their current services. Not the auditors they are sending us, but the office staff. Don’t be afraid of your registrar.

Originally posted by ISO GUY
Yes, you should treat your Registrar as a supplier. You should put them through the same qualifying process you would any critical supplier. When I do certification/surveillance audits, I check to see that the registrar is on the approved supplier list, if not I let them know they should be. Should you audit them, IMHO I would say no. You are already paying enough for some of these registrars services, let them come to you. Should you interview them have them visit you, have them fill out a supplier qualification form yes! If they see it an antagonizing then I would not use them. Yes, it is a delicate relationship, but they are not special. If they screw up call them on it, they would you wouldn’t they. I let our current registrar know in no uncertain terms they are not meeting our expectations, and that I am very unhappy with their current services. Not the auditors they are sending us, but the office staff. Don’t be afraid of your registrar.

You just remember that!:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :ko: :smokin:

Originally posted by energy

You just remember that!:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :ko: :smokin:Unless of course you are Energy then you should be afraid VERY AFRAID! LOL

:biglaugh:

Originally posted by M Greenaway

Does anyone out there view their registrar as a supplier?Yes.If so what supplier assessment do you conduct ?

I think its a great idea to go and audit your registrar - is this just stupidly asking for trouble, or could there be any real benefit (other than personal pleasure)?Personal pleasure, I guess. I can't see a reason to visit them. I would expect evidence on your end that they were evaluated and to be an approved supplier and what criteria you used. I would see the criteria as being mostly a financial decision as all registrars will have the basic requirement - that they are 'certified' to register companies by the IRAC or RAB or what/whoever. But - some companies, for example, include 'national prominance' or 'international prominance' - this may be part of your requirements. I had a client which wanted UL because they believed UL to be "...unimpeachable..." if trouble came up (shades of Arthur Anderson?). In their case, that was not a documented requirement but probably should have been... :rolleyes:

Registrars get audited too. Normally their accreditation body does it I guess. A few months ago I was hired by a Registrar to do a 3rd party audit of their operation. I did it and the results became part of thier record and then the whole C&P action stuff took place. I had to verify that the C&P was accomplished satisfactorily. Maybe some other folks here have done that also.

I think for the most part Registrars are made up of good folks that want to and actually do the right thing. We need to remember that they are in business like everyone else to generate cash flow. Of all organizations, Registrars should and most possibly would understand the need to meet the supplier criteria of the folks they service. I'm not defending anybody...let's say I'm being a "Devil's Advocate"

Originally posted by energy
[snip] be careful about beating them up like you would do to your normal suppliers. While I'm sure Energy meant this tounge-in-cheek, it does bring about an interesting question. Why do people think it is okay to "beat up" on their suppliers. Aren't your suppliers supposed to be partners in your business venture?

I've seen how companies can beat up on their suppliers - driving the cost of the inputs further and futher down. What is sacrificed? Quality, delivery, good will, the desire to do business with you... etc. Businesses don't like it when their customers beat up on them, so why do they do it to their suppliers?

Just some food for thought...

Cheers!!!

I think the RAB does it yearly. They call it a Witness Audit. :thedeal:

Originally posted by Marc
I think the RAB does it yearly. They call it a Witness Audit. :thedeal:

Accreditations are valid for four years. Surveillance audits are routinely conducted by RAB six months after accreditation has been granted, and then on the first, second, and third anniversaries of the accreditation. A complete reassessment is required every four years. Additional audits may be performed if the registrar wishes to extend the scope of accreditation to cover additional industry sectors or to participate in certain specialty fields.

A witness audit is when the RAB watches you do a Registration/Surveillance/Pre-Registration audit. I have been through them they are sooooooo much fun!

:biglaugh:

Originally posted by Michael T
While I'm sure Energy meant this tounge-in-cheek, it does bring about an interesting question. Why do people think it is okay to "beat up" on their suppliers. Aren't your suppliers supposed to be partners in your business venture?
Cheers!!! I've posted several times regarding those, mostly Quality types, that issue SCAR's for every little thing because they enjoy operating from the bully pulpit and have nothing elso important to do. You see this from larger corporations that have extra people that have to justify their existance. Even though the new standard wants that partnership, it will only flourish as long as the Customer is always on top!:vfunny: :ko: :smokin:

Originally posted by energy
Even though the new standard wants that partnership, it will only flourish as long as the Customer is always on top!:vfunny: :ko: :smokin: In more ways than one, I'll bet... :vfunny: I've posted several times regarding those, mostly Quality types, that issue SCAR's for every little thing because they enjoy operating from the bully pulpit and have nothing elso important to do. You see this from larger corporations that have extra people that have to justify their existance. Yep - I've just recently been the victim of just such a strategy. :mad: This purported "Quality Manager" wanted a SCAR because there was slight oxidation on a carbon steel fitting. Hmmmm.... we test hoses in water to determine if there is a leak. They've known this for YEARS. Nothing on the PO about no oxidation. Customer does not want to pay for SS fittings, oven drying, or any other type of process that will reduce the chance of oxidation. Yet... he wants to bust my ba**s over the issue. :confused:

This is a big reason why I don't beat up on our suppliers. First of all, there is no need; if I have a problem, we discuss it. If it recurs, then it's time for a SCAR. Second of all, if I need something from them, I ask them if they can do it. I don't surprise them. That just isn't fair.

Oh well...

I have to agree with Energy. You mostly see the larger corporations pushing their ideas on their little suppliers. Why? Because they can, they know the little guys depend on their business. Will this change, IMHO I would say no, these larger companies love the feeling of power and like the fact that when they say jump their suppliers ask how high.

Is anyone using BSI as there registrar? Since KPMG is no more, and our auditor didn't accept BSIs' offer, we are starting all over. I had an experience with Loyds a few years ago that I would not like to repeat. Our company president let me know this morning that I can make the change if I feel it necessary. Any inputs?:confused:
Energy what do you think? It seems you and I have similar feelings about registrars (nothing personnal to you "professionals" out there!) and audits.:ca:

Originally posted by Randy Stewart
Is anyone using BSI as there registrar? Energy what do you think? It seems you and I have similar feelings about registrars (nothing personnal to you "professionals" out there!) and audits.:ca:

Randy,

I'm no help here. I've only interviewed 2 possible registrars. We will do one more, just because we want to. Me? I've already made up my mind. Just have to convince Mgt. It will be my call, I'm sure. I would go with a smaller company that has reputation for service. The bigger ones, IMHO, are too expensive and lack that personal touch. No frills. Thanks for asking!:ko: :smokin:

Is there a specific reason why you want a 'major' registrar like BSI? Have you checked to see if there are any local to you? What about Quality Digest's yearly registrar rating - the one Eagle in Dayton topped this year (by 'pushing' their feedback as noted in the last survey {which Eagle Registrations killed for everyone})?

Man, there's a lot of registrars out there any more. :thedeal:

Randy-

We use BSI for some very specific reasons that may or may not apply to you:

1. We make medical devices and needed to be sure our registrar could provide a qualified assessor at all times

2. We sell Internationally and needed a registrar that could help guide us through that

Although we originally avoided BSI because we'd heard that they're overly picky, we've found that most of the auditors visiting us have been very reasonable and helpful.

By the way, your statement about Lloyd's surprised me. Although we had to leave them because they couldn't handle Annex IV of the Medical Device Directive (MDD) at the time, we were very happy with the way they handled a Pre-Assessment for us. Any details here?

Alf

Marc, there might be many reasons why some organizations would want to go with larger Registrars. Let me mention a few:

1. Worldwide recognition. If you are doing business internationally, or planning on doing so, your existing and potential customers might ask not only if you are ISO 9001 certified, but then, by whom? A small registrar might not have "brand recognition" outside of their domestic market, even though they might be fully accredited. As the market matures, we believe that, more and more, customers will start to enquiry who certifies you. After all, is a well known fact that some certificates out there are not worth the cost of the paper they were printed on . . . .
2. Sector Schemes. If an organization would have to become certified under one of the numerous sector schemes available and coming, such as QS-9000, TS-16949, AS9100, TL-9000, TE Supplement, ISO 13485, ISO 15561, ISO 17025, and more to come, such as AG-9000, FS-9000, etc . . they should go for a one-stop shop. The cost to become accredited under all these different schemes is significant and many smaller Registrars simply can not afford to become a player in all of the Schemes. Have you noticed that some US Registrars are not qualified to do TS-16949 audits? Have you noticed that the TS-16949 registrar approval process is outside of the normal accreditation process?
3. Structure. Yes, I agree that the "personal touch" factor is incredibly important, especially when we consider that auditing is such an interactive person-to-person process (even though we all say that we audit the system; not the individual). However, does the small registrars have enough structure to support you as a client? What happens if that ONE auditor you liked so much leaves the registrar? Will they have an office capable of supporting you with your enquiries? Will you have consistency and continuity of audits if your auditor quits? The Registrar I work for has invested some significant amount developing a customer portal, in which our clients have real-time, online access to information, such as their audit schedule, their audit reports, on-line answer to their CAR's, access to free documents, such as checklists, guide documents, advisory notices, etc., benchmarking information ( how their audit results compare to similar organizations with confidentiality aspects maintained) etc . . . Can smaller registrars provide that? Also on the issue of structure, if your organization has multiple sites around the country or around the World, will your registrar be able to support you, in a cost-effective manner? Or will they fly people all over the World with no command of foreign languages doing totally ineffective audits?
4. Stability. When every Industry is affected by mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, the Registrar community is no different. During the last 6 years we have seen some consolidation in the Registrar community. Many influencing people in this community state that we will see more and more consolidation in the future, because the economies of scale will prevail and only larger Registrars will be sustainable. ( I am not 100% sure that this theory is correct, but that is just my opinion.). So, will your smaller registrar be there for you, two years, down the road?

Yes, I am biased because I work for one of the large registrars, but I can attest to you that responsiveness, customer service, "personal-touch" and costs are present in our management reviews and daily discussions. We do know that our costs are affected by our overhead. What we are working very hard for is to make sure that this overhead equates into a structure that truly provides for customer support. We feel that we are doing well, even in the Quality Digest surveys (not Quality Progress). Considering the top 10 US registrars (in number of certificates) last year , we ranked # 1.
I believe that many people that might have had a single bad experience with a large registrar tend to think that all large registrars work the same way. This is not the way I see it. If I were in the other side, selecting a Registrar, one of my main concerns would be to enquiry certified clients how they rate their registrars. Furthermore, I would make sure that the certified clients I spoke to were chosen by ME, not the Registrar. After all, if I leave up to the Registrar to tell me who I should be talking to, I doubt they would give me a number and name of a client that they are having problems with.

That is all for now. Thanks for asking why would someone chose a larger registrar.

I agree with you 100% Sidney. I didn't mean to be knocking the big companies. I take each client company individually and ask what their needs are. I know we've discussed this in other threads. I don't have any registrar 'deals' going. I tell clients about registrars and see what they need. I tell them what I believe to be the pros and cons and then tell them to pick and rate 5. I give them a powerpoint presentation on choosing a registrar - questions to ask and such. I also give them 2 excel spreadsheets where they can plug and crank the numbers and rate the core group. Then I suggest getting 2 or 3 in for an 'interview' (you know hard that can be to do in some companies, not to mention the dog and pony effect...). I have some small clients who don't need world-wide recognition and such. When I asked the question above I looked at Randy's (?) profile and saw 400 people I think. But I don't know anything about the company - what it makes or such. Just suggesting some resources. I did suggest the Quality Digest (?) Survey of Registrars and I think most of the big ones are in there.

Medical devices? See a specialist (and there's not many small ones). World wide? That's an additional requirement.

Competition is coming into play, thought. Local registrars aren't always cheaper, or much cheaper, allowing for the travel factor which often comes into play.

So - yeah. It's what the company needs. :thedeal:

Originally posted by Sidney Vianna
Marc, there might be many reasons why some organizations would want to go with larger Registrars. Let me mention a few:
1. After all, is a well known fact that some certificates out there are not worth the cost of the paper they were printed on . . . .


Sidney,

Excellent post. Valid reasons. But, I wouldn't be me without taking a whack at one of them. Nothing personal.

There also companies touting certifications with all the different acreditation banners on their websites and stationary that send us nonconforming products. A sister company in my previous life obtained certification to ISO 9001 94' version and you should have seen their backlog of customer complaints. We were not certified and our Customer base grew due to our reputation in the industry and the quality of our product. So, to me, the certificate means the same, whether from a larger or smaller Registrar. It's just paper in either case and depends more on the controls you have in place to ensure the Quality of your product.

:truce: :ko: :smokin:

I think Sid's argument is valid as well as are points made by everyone else.

The name recognition offered by the larger Registrar's may be the kicker for some folks and other reasons(?) may be the deciding factor for others.

Think about name recognition alone. Which ticket would bear more weight in the market? Those offered by Lloyd's, DNV, UL or some others? Or a certificate from "Cert's - R - Us" of Podunk?

There are +'s and -'s in everything.

JMO

I thought energy would get a kick out of this. Have you received the ad for the company that will certify your certificate? For an annual fee of $625.00 they will post your certificate on their web page and certify that you really are certified! Talk about a scam.
:biglaugh:

Originally posted by Randy
Think about name recognition alone. Which ticket would bear more weight in the market? Those offered by Lloyd's, DNV, UL or some others? Or a certificate from "Cert's - R - Us" of Podunk?
JMO

"Cert-R-Us"? ANSI-RAB Acredited? Yup, that's my ticket. We already know we make good stuff! Our customers just want us certified/registered.
:vfunny: :ko: :smokin:

Originally posted by Randy Stewart
I thought energy would get a kick out of this. Have you received the ad for the company that will certify your certificate? For an annual fee of $625.00 they will post your certificate on their web page and certify that you really are certified! Talk about a scam.
:biglaugh:

Geez, I wonder what the certificate looks like. Sounds like our cup of tea!:p :ko: :smokin:

Too many Randy's here. Someone is going to have to start specifying "Goodlooking, intelligent and capable Marine Randy" or "Squidly Randy":biglaugh:

I am looking around closer to home Marc. BSI now owns KPMG and therefore our contract at this time. They are across the river and we have minimum travel cost applied.
We went with KPMG 7 years ago after meeting Rad Smith at an automotive conference.
:thedeal:

Randy-I'm not promoting BSI, although I mentioned that we're happy with them, but your comment about their location is worth addressing.

While they are essentially a UK company, we deal with BSI_Americas out of Virginia, and our current auditor only travels up the coast from Southern California. And since he's a pretty nice guy, I may have to re-think my opinion of Southern Californians (that's an Oregon insider joke ;) .

Anyway, the location of main offices may not be an important consideration.

Alf

They're out of Windsor Ont so it takes about 45 minutes to get here. I think we're going to see how it goes this time. Although I've been waiting since Thursday for a call back from them. It seems our account manager only works, get this, Thursdays and Fridays!!!! We don't know who the new auditor is, don't have his schedule, they haven't asked for any documents and the audit is in 3 weeks.:confused:

Sounds like nice work if you can get it!!!

Alf

Go for the real skinny, hire the auditor before you hire the registrar????????????????????????

The registrar just has lower level people making sure the t's are crossed and the charge card is open.

Let me know what you think about this. We have been using VCA for our ISO 14000 certifications. They don't deal with TE-9000 but they do the QS9000 and TS16949. My next surveillance is coming up in 4 weeks, so I believe I will try BSI for that one and see how we fair. I am in the middle of a gap analysis for 16949 right now and what I'm thinking is to look at registration by the end of the year say in the area of our OCT/SEPT Surveillance. I've not identified any real gaps from TE/TS review. Anyone looked at this yet? Our processes are pretty much in line with the TS and I don't see a huge change. If I can meet the time frame, is there any down side? Is there any unseen ramifications?????:confused:
What do you think?

Just wanted to thank everyone for the information they provided, it was a big help. I don't believe the price difference between some of these places. I had a difference of over $25,000.00!!! I sent the same info to all 4 in the RFQ.:confused:

I have found the comments posted here most enlightening and offer a couple of random thoughts.
It is quite acceptable for a registrar to be considered a supplier, and a supplier qualification can be defined. Where a supplier questionnaire is involved for a registrar and requires a quality standard or system, the ISO/IEC Guide 62 or EN 45012 may be substituted for an ISO 9000 or equivalent quality standard (even though it is much more rigorous.) If a part of the process-and would be subject to the registrar's own policies, a copy of the most recent accreditation/surveillance report would demonstrate continued maintenance of the accreditation (the Summary page or pages should suffice.)
Registrars usually price their services according to their overhead--the costs of the auditors, the expenses of maintaining the offices, etc. Marketing is also a big part of the overhead. Where the auditors are full-time employees, they are being paid whether they are on the road or not--hence it makes good sense to have them on the road as much as possible; the downside is burn-out, and bad dispositions. When an auditor is subcontracted, they are paid an agreed rate for their services--and the adage you get what you pay for comes into play. Travel costs may be computed in the overall quotation, or may be cited separately. I feel a registrar should respect the travel expense limitations the client would impose on their own employees--caps on lodging, meals and the likes--where travel costs may be incurred.
It is perfectly acceptable to challenge a registrar, and registrars are required to maintain files of complaints that are subject to review on the accreditation body surveillance audits; perhaps what is not well known is that the complaints can be from the customers of the clients that are certified by the registrar.
When viewing the marketing materials received from registrars--considering these expenses overhead, apply the "value-added" test; some marketing packages are very expensive--is there a value to the certification provided?
As the community of registrars swells, it is in everyone's best interest to become more familiar with the ISO/IEC Guide 62--to be able to ask more probing questions; while every registrar must demonstrate how the requirements are met, the nuances can make big distinctions in the value to the prospective client.

And your point is Ric?

Your very 1st comments here in the Cove sound like sniveling to me....but then I have been proven wrong.;) Does anybody remember when that was by the way?

All you said Ric, was that a Registrar has the same issues any other business has (like me and Marc and some of the others). Are you being totally objective with your statements?

Oh by the way......welcome to The COVE.:bigwave:


P.S. You need a 14K Auditor/consultant?:)

First this is my first venture into the Cove, and have found it quite refreshing! Thanks for the welcome!
The intent of my submission from the things I read was to hopefully provide a little different slant--and especially from the slant of the companies I hear from daily. They are unaware of many of the requirements accreditation imposes on the registrar and how things work from that side of the fence. There is much more depth to the issues involved here, and guess this was more of an ice breaker--and a test of the waters!
I hope to be open with the information many companies know little about or that it even exists. For instance, there is absolutely nothing wrong with "qualifying" a registrar, however, if they balked at the idea of becoming a qualified supplier-and all that it entails, the idea of a long term relationship certainly isn't off to a very good start. "Antagonized" is not a good way to build a relationship.
If there was any perception of sniveling, I never intended that, apologize for the perception, and will try to do better in the future!:bonk:

Just my way of greeting a new guy. You'll find that nobody gets cut any slack here:biglaugh:

Take a look back through the threads to find out how really warped everyone is here.

If you have an appetite for roadkill you came to the right place that's for sure;)

Registrars usually price their services according to their overhead--the costs of the auditors, the expenses of maintaining the offices, etc. Marketing is also a big part of the overhead

Ric,
I understand they have to make a profit. The purpose of me including the difference in quotes was due to the amount.

Being a supplier to the B3 we are "required" to obtain, maintain and pay for the registrars. However, I can't raise my prices to my customer to cover my costs of any additional personel required, time spent auditing, etc. that are incurred to maintain the "compliance" to what I'm being held to. Not only that but every so often they will change the requirements. Now I must pay someone else or accept additonal expense to prove I'm in compliance with another standard or the "upgrade" of the existing requirement (i.e. QS to TE, ISO 14000).

I'm not saying that there is no value in maintaining a compliant system. However, you will get no simpathy from me of the costs registrars incur just to tell me that my system works.

Welcome to the cove.:bigwave:

Exactly!! We are fully in agreement! Where the registrar's quotes are higher, the first question through my mind would be the overhead expenses that contribute to their day rate. The registrar should be able to demonstrate to the client (prospective or contracted) how their services provide value added to the picture!!! Let's take a hypothetical--rent or lease fees. Where a registrar pays (yes, I have seen this figure) more than $50 a square foot per month rent on the offices, what is the value to the client? Where a marketing package costs the registrar more than $25 per copy to be mailed to prospective clients, what is the value added to the service?

How does the registrar compute the number of days on-site? The Guideline document to the ISO/IEC Guide 62 contains a chart--oh by the way, this Guideline document was revised in December 2001. It may be accessed at the IAF website (http://www.iaf.nu/)--and it doesn't cost anything!! The new table now includes only the audit days specified for the intitial (certification) audit, and states the annual surveillance audits should be roughly one-third the number of days required on the intitial audit. These are now specified as on-site days. Then the discussion describes the variables that may be used to adjust the day count up or down that must be included in the computation of the days for an individual client. Such things as size of facility, the complexity of the processes, whether the facility is design responsible, and if there is an implemented quality system in place are a few of the factors. It also stipulates that the adjustments made should never reduce the inititial on-site day count by more than 10%. This is the playing field leveler since the number of days for a client is a big accreditation body interest item during surveillance audits, and justification for major adjustments must be documented and acceptable. The registrar could lose their accreditation over this, and it might beg the question in the dialogue how the day count is derived, especially if it is out of line with the others.

On the issue of auditors, there are exquisite auditors with great reputations--the key to their success (and again the value added factor raises its head), is their interpersonal relations skills--the ability to immediately remove the barriers in the audit setting. There are a few very technically qualified auditors who haven't seemed to recognize or master the ability to relate to the people on the floor. These are the kinds of auditors who do have the capacity to "add value" to the audit.
By the way, we do have Road Kill Cafes around here! Trying to get them to add Bambi Burgers and 'Possum bottoms!:lick:

Originally posted by Jim Wade
Ric

Apart from having better interpersonal skills than the competition, to make the whole thing a more pleasant experience, how else can an auditor add value?

rgds Jim

Like, No N/C's? :biglaugh: :ko: :smokin:

testing my thread subscription function

Right on the money! At least as far as ISO 9000 goes--disregarding the other variants which can be more prescriptive...

:thedeal: ALL I MIGHT CONTRIBUTE HERE IS JUST MY OPINION, AND WHERE CONTRADICTED, CHALK IT UP TO EVERYONE HAVING THE FREEDOM TO HOLD TO THEIR OWN--WHETHER RIGHT OR WRONG!

It is the client that must define, apply and implement the quality system that meets their business needs. The auditor/assessor must take the time to understand how the client has met the intent of the standard, applied it to their business practices--and then objectively determine their compliance. IMHO--the clauses of the standard should not be the sole criteria, that many other factors can weigh in the overall picture, including (auditable) customer requirements.

The 9K2K requires more evidence of executive involvement, and the objectives are reviewed at that level. In a case that comes to mind, the CEO was very prepared during the certification audit, but had to demonstrate to the auditor the objectives he'd set, the progress towards the objectives, and satisfactorily explained where progress had not been as great as desired. In this case, the auditor was actually pushing the bounds of his comfort level by "digging" but in the end was convinced the executive was fully supportive, and making the progress suited for the facility.

Obviously, auditors aren't to provide consultation. There are techniques auditors can employ to get the intellectual juices flowing on the part of the client. In another case, after determining the requirement was compliant, a couple of probing rhetorical questions were asked like "what if...?" It is a matter of the auditor seeing beyond what is just in front of him/her in the context of experience. In this case, the company found the opportunities to clarify points and preclude other problems later--but with their judgement and within their existing processes.

How many auditors offer "what I want to see..." or "the standard requires (some procedural level detail not actually reflected in the standard)"? Real life examples: "I want to see your quality manual reflect the element numbering of the standard." :mad: and "Your approved vendor list must contain every supplier with whom you do business whether the commodity or service bears on the final product."

For Energy--I was once corrected in my use of the English syntax-from "It is the purpose of the audit not to find nonconformities" to more properly state "It is not the purpose of the audit to find nonconformities.":ko:

I was once corrected in my use of the English syntax-from "It is the purpose of the audit not to find nonconformities" to more properly state "It is not the purpose of the audit to find nonconformities." I agree. It is NOT the purpose of the audit NOT to find nonconformities. :bonk:

Dave

The registrar is definitely a supplier that affects your qms.

When selecting a registrar you should not be afraid to ask for evidence of accrediation. The certificate is not enough, you should also ask for the scope of accrediation as well as the copy of the last assessment report conducted by the accrediator.

The competency of auditors with the relevant SIC codes is also important , so you should ask for evidence of training .

Interviewing some of their customers are also important, make sure that you select them and that they are from your imdustry sector.

Any registrar that does not respond favourably to these requests should not be selected.....

:bigwave:

Probably this deserves a new thread, but since it has not been very active in the past couple months, I will place the question here....

Seeking input on registrar invoicing policies, i.e., how many invoice for their certification services after the certification audit with no monetary commitment up-front? It is my experience that most registrars invoice for some portion of the first year of certification, or some "ernest money" to establish a contract relationship, but wondering if, and who may not require such a commitment in advance?
Any feedback will be appreciated.

Hi Ric

The invoicing policies of each registrar may differ from one to another. You must remember that registrars are operating with commercial interests. Each will have its own credit and debtors policy.

As far as we are concerned, our organisation only invoices after the initial assessment, ( this includes initial enquiry, promotional visits, pre-assessment visits, readiness survey, document evaluation, assessment , clearance of findings and admin). We do however get a quotation signed as some sort of commitment. The quotation also has a clause that states that should the assessment be cancelled close to the agreed date, then we will recover any costs incurred. Following the successful certification, we then invoice on a monthly basis, as per our signed contract with our customers. this is negotiable!

hope this clarifies the issues

Meera

Our registrar - SQA - appears to be about the same as described by Meera. We didn't lay out any money up front but had to sign a quote acceptance.

A2LA for our lab accreditation was a different matter - we had to pay up front before they would even process the application.

Dave

I'd be weary of a supplier that asks for payment prior to assessment. What happens if you decide not to use them, will they pass acredit to you?

Look around for another registrar, why not use us?


Meera Hoosen

Ric,

I used to work for LRQA. A contract for terms and conditions was signed, as well as a Work Order which contained all of the price quote information for a three year period. Upon the signing of the contract, it was typical for a nominal (from $500 to $1000 usually) administration fee to be charged which applied to the full three year period. No other fee was charged for reports or other admin services. Then each visit's manday rate was billed after each visit occurred. We waited until the assessor's expenses were received so that we could attach them (with no upcharge for the handling - they were passed on to the client at cost) and then mailed the invoice for the visit.

A monthly or quarterly invoicing scheme could be arranged to accommodate a client's request, but I can recall precious few of those types of requests.

I have been very happy with KPMG, now BSI. The transition has been transparent to me, with the exception of the new logo on the certificates. I treat BSI as a supplier to me, although not as formally as I would "normal" suppliers. If I am unhappy with their performance - whether it be something in their administrative office or problems with an auditor - I let them know and they take corrective action. There have never been any negative repercussions from the issues I have raised.

BTW - one consideration for choosing a registrar should be whether or not they are on the IATF list of certification bodies (that is, if you are going for TS registration). SQA is NOT on that list.

Are you sure Kerry? I seem to remember Smithers being one of the first ones approved. We are not working with TS so we are ok but I wouldn't like to see them knocked if they didn't deserve it.

Dave

I just checked with the iaob website. Smithers is listed as approved. I've worked with Smithers from time to time and have clients that use them. I agree with Dave's comments.

My bad - Didn't realize "SQA" was Smithers. I wasn't knocking them - just trying to point out that people need to make sure the registrars they are getting quotes from are able to provide the services they need. I had one registrar, who shall go unnamed to avoid anyone thinking I'm badmouthing them, try to convince me that they would be able to provide me TS registration services. That registrar is not on the list, nor are they even being considered at this time.

Meera commented about the practices of invoicing in advance of certification. This is a practice used by many registrars. While not advocating for or against the practice, the parallels may be made to paying insurance premiums in advance for coverage or magazine subscriptions. Certification is both an activity and a "subscription"-for lack of finding a better word-that is ongoing, i.e., represents the certificate duration or life.

On the issue of revisiting the decision to use a certain registrar, the "chemistry" determined in the selection process should minimize the chances this would happen. By entering into a relationship (including the exchange of monies) provides the registrar with some assurance that the client will want to work through any issues resulting from the certification and surveillance audits, and not just walk away from the results of an audit they may not like. The appeals process every registrar has in place should cover the disagreements raised outside the financial relationship.

Also see:

http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=1809
and
http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=1774

Also see this thread: Are Registrars Suppliers? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=2449)