RANDY: Why don't we start a thread on the RAB iself?

ANSWER: Good idea Randy, why don't you start it off?

RANDY: Okie, dokie, not a problem.

Here's are questions that I have asked the RAB on the phone and by email (to more than one person by the way).
1. Why should I tell people to seek auditor certification thru the RAB instead of IRCA or SCC or anyone else? My answer...(0, zero, nada, nothing, nichts, zilch).

Another question...
2. If serving as a Witness Auditor is a duty of a registered Lead Auditor, why doesn't the time that is served in that capacity count towards maintenance of that credential? If you want the answer to that either stand in line with me or refer to #1 above.

How about these.....
3. If I am in possession of a document from one of your representatives stating that I have met all of my recertification requirements over that last 3 years, why are you just now trying to verify my materials?

4. Why was I told 6 months prior to my recertification that I had fulfilled ALL of my recertification requirements and only had to submit my fees for the following year, and now find out after the fact that you may not renew me?

5. Who's fault is it that I defered performing audits to train future auditors under the belief that I had fulfilled my requirements?

This is a good one too...
6. Why does IRCA recognize audits performed as an individual and the RAB require at least 2 people to be on a Team to have an acceptable audit?

The final was a doozie...
7. Why doesn't the RAB support its own auditor certification program and only hire RAB auditors to perform its audits of training organizations and registrars?

Guess what guys? I haven't gotten a response to any of them yet!

It seems that with personnel turnover (rivaling ENRON it seems) and all the other issues they deal with I'm just a voice in the wilderness.

Anybody else have similar issues or want to jump in?

Can anyone give a list of dependencies? Like the RAB is associated to the ASQ by ......

I don't think the RAB has ever been accused of Rapid Response, has it?

I had this on file but do not know where it came from:
RAB-accreditation body of Quality and Environmental System Registrars (jointly with ANSI), accreditation of auditor course training providers (jointly with ANSI) and certification of auditors. RAB was established by the ASQ in 1989. Legal status is an affiliate of ASQ.

I can honestly say i have not really had any major problems with the RAB. I have never had any paper work rejected.

Why RAB and not SCC or IRCA IMHO the RAB is more widely recognized.

They have never rejected any witness audits I have submitted for my recertification.

If you have the letter that states you acheived the requirements for recertification send it to them. That should take care of #3 and #4 on your list. #5 should be a mute point with the letter.

RAB has never rejected any audits I have done for maintaining my credentials just becuase they were done alone. I know you need to complete X amount of audits as the lead with at least one other person on the team and be on site at least 2 days for it to count towards your lead certification.

#7 I am not sure what you are asking.

In my experiences with the RAB I will admit they have not always been fast but they have responded to me with in a day or so if they were unable to anwser me at the time. JMHO

Originally posted by Marc

I don't think the RAB has ever been accused of Rapid Response, has it?

What do you consider rapid?

Originally posted by ISO GUY
What do you consider rapid?

A week.

Let me put it this way.....

There has been no attempt to verify the audit logs I turned in for 2000 & 2001 until now. The organization that I performed many of the audits for no longer exists and many of the people needed to verify are out of touch (2 I know of are in IRAQ and another in Qatar). The RAB assured me, as of October 2002, that I had successfully met all of my 3 year recert requirements and only had to submit the fee (I have a copy of the email). I subsequently refrained from performing additional audits in lieu of performing training classes instead. I have in the last few days been informed that I may not have enough audit time and the time spent as a witness auditor does not count. Now answer this question....Should my fanny be a little chapped or not?

The other question I have is....Why should I or any other registered Lead serve as a witness auditor for anyone else (other than for the $)?

Is it possible that the differences you two have seen is due to the fact that Randy is dealing with the EMS auditor certification board and ISO GUY is dealing with the QMS board? At least that's who I assume you're dealing with based on other posts by each of you. I've never had any real issues with them (QMS) either. Of course, you would think that they would be consistent in their administration of the rules... :bonk:

To answer your other questions:

No, your fanny should not be a little chapped. It should be a lot chapped.
You should serve as a witness auditor in order to better your fellow man and further the causes of improved auditing, peace, justice, and the American way. :D OK, what I really meant to say was just for the $$. :p

Originally posted by Marc
A week.

I would say a week is fair as well, but I would also say it depends on what type of information you are looking for. In my experiences with the RAB it has never taken longer than a week for them to get back to me.

I think you also need to look at other factors that may cause them (or any company for that matter) to take longer getting back with you. How did you treat the person you spoke with, if you were nasty with them it is just human nature that they will put your request low on the list, now on the other hand if you are nice they may push it for you. Now I am not saying this is what happened in Randys case, maybe he spoke with a newer employee, or a lazy one. Not saying the RAB is good or bad just that I personally have not had a problem with them.

Ask 'em why should RAB auditor certification be sought after instead of IRCA and see how long the response takes.;)

I've had a couple of pretty nice conversations all the way up to Cindy Miller that were nearly circular in nature. Right now the RAB is going to review the Witness Auditor issue and make a decision (about the same time that Lucifer gets frostbite probably) as to whether or not LA's that perform that function (Witness Auditor) can count the time as Lead time on audit logs (DUH!)

The last question I asked (May 29th) was:"If only LA"s can do it, why isn't it Lead time?. The immediate answer I got was "Because you didn't do the opening or closing meeting and write the report.

Opening and closing meeting? You mean go thru the prepared checklist of items to cover and maybe use6.5.1 & the associated practical help box of ISO 19011:2000 and 6.5.7 of ISO 19011:2000?.....gaoaoaolyyyyyyyyyy! Duh.

The audit report? Do you mean go to 6.6.1 of ISO 19011:2000 and follow the guidance of preparing the report? Gorsh, I'm just not that familiar with that task.

I really wasn't that nasty with my responses but give me a break (and everybody else too)!!! I also sur;prised them with the 19K11 stuff.

This whole thing is silly and if they had been on the ball the past 2-3 years this wouldn't be happening. They need to do some Preventive Action" and also start becoming concerned with customer satisfaction and meeting expectations.

Originally posted by Randy
They need to do some Preventive Action" and also start becoming concerned with customer satisfaction and meeting expectations. [/B]

C'mon, Randy, you know better. That kinda stuff is for everyone else to do, not them! They dictate the rules, everyone else follows them. Next you'll be expecting the folks at the state DMV offices to be efficient, friendly, and helpful! Know your place! :rolleyes:

You might be right there Mike:)

I can share an older story with you...this happened in 2001, I copied my old posting on this:

http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1798&highlight=RAB

Here's a good one, people....had to share it with you...

I received a fax yesterday from the RAB. Our ISO auditor is up for certification and they asked me to verify some information, in the form of a questionaire. The questionaire came with a cover letter addressed to our company and to my attention. First thing I notice is they spelled my name wrong. Now I am accustomed to this, as I have a unique last name (and for those of you wondering, yes, it does start with an "X"). Second thing I notice is they spell my companies name completely wrong. I mean, not even remotely close. And this from the organization that controls the whole package here. Well, I completed the questionaire, then I crossed out all the errors and wrote in the correct spellings, and faxed back with a note stating they had several spelling errors.

So my question of the day....who is watching the watcher....cuz they ain't doing it themselves!!!

CarolX

Originally posted by CarolX

So my question of the day....who is watching the watcher....cuz they ain't doing it themselves!!!

CarolX

Answer: NADA!!!

Who watchs the RAB the other Certification bodies police eachother. Is this the best way, IMHO yes unless you would rather see the Government involved in it then it would lose all credibility.

Carol, the spelling errors more than likely came from your auditor since he/she is the the one supplying the information to the RAB for them to check on.

Please don't think I am taking the side of the RAB I am just looking at it from the other side. In my experiences with them I have not had a problem yet, that may change in the future but for now I guess I have been lucky. I haven't had any problems at the DMV either.:biglaugh:

This is just my take.

Originally posted by ISO GUY
Carol, the spelling errors more than likely came from your auditor since he/she is the the one supplying the information to the RAB for them to check on.

ISO GUY is right. The auditor submits audit logs to the RAB that include contact information for auditees. If the auditor sends incorrect information, the RAB has no way to know. :vfunny:

Originally posted by ISO GUY
I haven't had any problems at the DMV either.:biglaugh:



Maybe DMV where you are, like DMV where I am from originally, works well, but let me tell you, if you live long enough and move into some areas of the country, you will have problems at the DMV.:biglaugh:

Originally posted by SteelMaiden
Maybe DMV where you are, like DMV where I am from originally, works well, but let me tell you, if you live long enough and move into some areas of the country, you will have problems at the DMV.:biglaugh:

Or maybe if you are nice/pleasent with them they will be the same with you????:truce:

Originally posted by Randy
.....gaoaoaolyyyyyyyyyy!

Hey thanks for providing that phonetic! Until now I've never known how to do a Gomer! :vfunny:

Originally posted by Lucinda
Hey thanks for providing that phonetic! Until now I've never known how to do a Gomer! :vfunny:

Absolutely dearie;)

BTW..Judi should be signing the papers on the house tomorrow or Wednesday. Thanks, we wouldn't have found it without you.

Randy

Check this out:

RAB to Increase Registrar Oversight Tenfold; Registrars to Comply with ISO 9001

@

http://www.oxebridge.com/news.asp?ID=193

This is all well and good, but what if clients don't want RAB witness auditors present during their registration audits? What's the RAB going to do, hold its breath till they turn purple?

When is the RAB going to support its own auditor certification program by using only certified auditors to perform it witness audits?

When is the RAB going to require registrars to use certified auditors to help "strengthen" the process?

". . .This is all well and good, but what if clients don't want RAB witness auditors present during their registration audits? What's the RAB going to do, hold its breath till they turn purple? . . "

Randy, if I am not mistaken, under NEW RAB rules, no certified organization can deny RAB's access to witness a CRB audit team in action. We all know that one of the "games" some Registrars play is to line up only the most qualified teams to be witnessed by the RAB. But now, they (RAB) are trying to make it more difficult for the Registrars to decide when, who and where the witness audits should happen.

Obviously, "games" can still be played, but just the fact that we are expected to see more policing is good, in my opinion.

There are too many cheaters in this Business. :whip:

Very interesting. If witness audits are increased 10 fold (from 300 to 3,000), where are they going to draw these 2,700 additional audits/auditors from??? Are these "super" auditors pulled from registrars or what?

It also seems a shame that audit costs for registered companies will go up to help pay for registrars getting their own ISO certification. :mad:

Obviously, "games" can still be played, but just the fact that we are expected to see more policing is good, in my opinion.

Sidney, Although I agree that more oversight may be a welcomed thing, I have to pose the question: How are the cost increases going to impact registration growth? With many companies questioning the ROI for cost expended for certification (where not required by a customer) at current rates, wouldn't increasing the cost provide them with even more reason to question the financial benefits?
:bonk:

Rob,

I don't think the RAB would issue ISO 9001 certificates to the Registrars. The RAB would assess Registrars to ISO 9001, IN ADDITION to ISO Guide 62, 66 and the upcoming ISO 17021.

Registrars are issued Certificates of Accreditation, after the Accreditation Bodies verify compliance with the applicable Standards. I believe that they just want to add ISO 9001 to the mix of Standards that Registrars are expected to demonstrate compliance with.

Kind of "take your own medicine" ....

Sidney, Although I agree that more oversight may be a welcomed thing, I have to pose the question: How are the cost increases going to impact registration growth? With many companies questioning the ROI for cost expended for certification (where not required by a customer) at current rates, wouldn't increasing the cost provide them with even more reason to question the financial benefits?
:bonk:

Dave, as I said in another thread. Personally, I am much less concerned with registration growth than registration credibility. The growth of a non-credible certification scheme is non-value added.

Measures taken to promote credibility of management system certificates is IMPERATIVE, in my estimation. Failure to do so will accelerate the demise of the whole concept. Certification of management systems has been trivialized, cheated upon and all the rest. It is time to revert the trend.

Sidney,

If the Registrars have to be 9001 compliant, will their scope include 7.3? :lol: :topic:

Just Wondering,
Doug

Sidney,

If the Registrars have to be 9001 compliant, will their scope include 7.3? :lol: :topic:

Just Wondering,
Doug

It should. Have a look at the example # 3 of Annex A in http://isotc176sc2.elysium-ltd.net/1.2Application.doc

Man, why do I feel like I am dodging bullets? :lmao:

What about my other questions concerning the auditors Sid? Does DNV use only RAB, IRCA or any other type of certificated auditor? Will DNV do so?

What about the RAB itself and certificated auditors?

Also the RAB can't demand squat of registration clients....if I don't want some bozo in my facility that's their problem not mine. I work a couple of client sites that are US military installations that require security clearance access, and the RAB can demand their collective butts off and they still won't get in. If the RAB pushes it they better be able to access some good lawyers.

What would the RAB do if I was a Registrar and my industry focus was on governmental/military agencies instead of automotive? They'd be allowed to audit all they wanted to at the front gate, I guarantee you that.

1000 times...gimme a break

What about my other questions concerning the auditors Sid? Does DNV use only RAB, IRCA or any other type of certificated auditor? Will DNV do so?

Yes, our auditors are either RAB, IRCA or IATCA certified.

What about the RAB itself and certificated auditors?

I don't know. Ask them if you want.

Also the RAB can't demand squat of registration clients....if I don't want some bozo in my facility that's their problem not mine. I work a couple of client sites that are US military installations that require security clearance access, and the RAB can demand their collective butts off and they still won't get in. If the RAB pushes it they better be able to access some good lawyers.

Try again, Randy. The RAB CAN demand it. Check

http://www.rabnet.com/content/R2.doc

2.3.5 The CRB shall have enforceable arrangements with organizations being audited for the purpose of being issued an accredited certificate, to ensure access to witness the CRB’s audit team performing an audit at the organization’s site.

2.3.5.1 The CRB must notify the NAP at such time an organization refuses a witness audit. If the organization chooses to transfer to another CRB to avoid having its audit witnessed, an NAP accredited certificate may not be issued. The NAP will notify IAF member accreditation bodies of such refusals.


What would the RAB do if I was a Registrar and my industry focus was on governmental/military agencies instead of automotive? They'd be allowed to audit all they wanted to at the front gate, I guarantee you that.

If you the Registrar does not allow or provide for witnessed audits, you fail to satisfy the Accreditation requirements, thus you are NOT accredited. That simple.

1000 times...gimme a break

Let knowledge prevail.

Neither the RAB or any other body is going to tell the commander of an organization that he can't refuse to let one of thier auditors in.

I know about the RAB's witness auditor requirments, but it's ultimately the client that says who comes in and who doesn't. I can't believe the RAB would refuse a cert for a US Gov't agency because they didn't want to participate in a witness audit.

Can the RAB keep a client from stipulating in a contract agreement that only the registrar auditors with proper clearance will be allowed onsite?


You know I'm just arguing and playing Devil's Advocate here don't you?

The RAB might elect NOT to witness an audit conducted in a installation with security clearance concerns, due to logistical problems, but they would have the right (according to the accreditation procedures) to request to witness such audit. Obviously they would have to provide auditors that satisfy the clearance requirements.

In the unlikely event that the RAB chose to witness such audit and the installation commander refused their presence, such system should NOT be granted a RAB accredited certificate, according to RAB requirements.

What do you think the chances of that happening are? I can see it now....

"Dear Base Commander,
Regardless of the security issues involved and your National Security concerns we cannot accredate the certificate issued by XYZ Registrars because our auditors could not witness the audit of your organization.

You must understand, we are the RAB and even if we're wrong, we are right."

RAB GURU in Charge


Uh-Huh...fat chance of that letter ever being written.

The RAB has a very important mission to fulfill, but this planned 1000 fold increase is going to nothing but drive up registration costs and cause a downturn in the US/RAB registration business due to those costs needing to be passed on to the "customer". The RAB may be shooting itself in the buttocks and drive business to those organizations accredited by IRCA and other more business minded accreditation authorities. The folks on Plankington need to rethink this one.

That RAB wants to actually go look at 9K registrars is good.

When I go assess a laboratory (ISO/IEC 17025) or an inspection body (ISO/IEC 17020) a demonstration of technical proficiency is a requirement. The demonstration must cover the entire scope of accreditation over a specified period that works out to 2-3 assessments, depending on scope.

We work with the labs and inspection bodies of course, as sometimes there may be other considerations not immediately visible, like security clearances required. Still, an inability to demonstrate the technical proficiency means that some portion of the scope may be denied or removed.

To me, it appears from the article that RAB is trying to get with the program. I hope they succeed.

Hershal