If so, which registrar and what is / are the 'extra' requirements?

Entella contains questions on their checklist from Annex A (14001)

Each of the registrars I have worked with have had some requirements above the standard. Most of them deal with administrative type issues, nothing "big" but sometimes annoying. One required that we keep a documented list of how each of our records was filed (date - filed newest to oldest or oldest to newest, customer - alphanumeric or by customer number) this was kind of a pain...most of the time it is immediately apparent how things are filed when you open the draw, but oh well, we knew the answers and it took so little time and resources that it wasn't worth fighting over.

Registrar requires us to have a 2nd or deputy Management Rep assigned within our company. No big deal. Doesn't mean much unless I'm out sick during a surviellance audit. I have not found any other "special" requirments yet...

Registrar #1: Required by contract a stockist checklist. What was not in the contract was the requirement to have the quality policy memorized. Also, we wanted to have a deputy management rep and they said no. Oddly, registrar #2 required a deputy management rep.

Registrar #2: contracturally required a deputy mgmt rep. no other issues. Auditor said he'd be fired if he required us to memorize the quality policy.

Registrar # 3: Nothing outside the standard

Registrar #4: nothing in the contract, but I've discovered the signed mgmt review minutes issue, and there may be more...I've only just started looking.

Registrar #1: Required by contract a stockist checklist. What was not in the contract was the requirement to have the quality policy memorized.

Anybody that requires people to memorize the QP is a boob (nothing to do with body parts).

Deputy mgmt rep....just a good common sense practice anyway

Signed mgmnt review minutes....I ain't gonna go back down this trail, that's in another thread, but I figured as much.

Our registrar required a 3 page "custome rrequiremnts profile" tied to each clause of TS2. Also required a spreadsheet identifying COP's, inputs, outputs, measures, process owners, procedures and work instructions.
Note: COP's are not required by TS2.

Registrar #1: Required by contract a stockist checklist. What was not in the contract was the requirement to have the quality policy memorized. Also, we wanted to have a deputy management rep and they said no. Oddly, registrar #2 required a deputy management rep.

Registrar #2: contracturally required a deputy mgmt rep. no other issues. Auditor said he'd be fired if he required us to memorize the quality policy.

Registrar # 3: Nothing outside the standard

Registrar #4: nothing in the contract, but I've discovered the signed mgmt review minutes issue, and there may be more...I've only just started looking.

And registrar #5 may want his/her own office with a lockable door, a telephone and, of course, a window. Preferrably yours.That's where the problem is. If the MR/QA Mgr did their Registrar interview correctly, they would sniff out these overbearing pompous bottom feeders at the very beginning. You get what you deserve because you didn't do your homework. If you inherited the mess, my condolences. Somebody dropped the ball. I interviewed three potential Registrars and two of them didn't have a chance. I got tired of staring up into those arrogant nostrils and they were cordially sent on their way. The one selected was extremely candid and very likable. When I posted this some time ago, I was told that I should be on the lookout for Charlatans in the industry. Why? Because, in some minds, no Registrar worth their salt should be likable. I say, If you expect crap, you will get it. If you take crap, you will get more of it! JMHO. :smokin:

Our former Registrar/Notified body had a special requirment that they did not convey. When we left them they were holding one of our customers cert. hostage becuase we went with an American Registrar and they siad that the EU Notified bodies have an unwritten agreement that in order for our cert to be valid it had to be done by someone in their little circle, so being that we didnt want to lose our largest customer we had to do what they said. Ohh those German Registrars! :mad:

Registrar #1: Required by contract a stockist checklist. What was not in the contract was the requirement to have the quality policy memorized.

Was it the Registrar that required the QP to be memorized or the auditor there is a big difference. I have never heard anyone requiring the QP be memorized. I do audits for two Registrars and only ask the people to explain it to me in their own words, what it means to them and how they help support it in their function. Having a second/backup mgmt rep is pretty common most functions in a company do have backups!

No additional comments on Registrar#4, I think the point has been made in another thread. :truce:

I sure wish you folks would say what registrars are requiring what. I mean, really... Surely no registrar would resent their name being attached to their requirements. I also find it hard to believe that this would in any way be a confidentiality aspect.

As we go through a thread like this, there are a lot of people looking to choose a registrar and others considering switching. It would make things easier if some names were named - possibly to even be used in 'negotiating'.

One thing I was thinking of is starting a 'sub-forum' which really isn't a forum but rather a link to an html file with a table. Columns being something like those in the attached spreadsheets. I can do the work here if you folks feed me the data and we need to agree on columns or such.

It would be a big help to a lot of folks. Cari Spears PMed me yesterday about that aspect with respect to the current file I have on implementation.

:thedeal:

If the MR/QA Mgr did their Registrar interview correctly, they would sniff out these overbearing pompous bottom feeders at the very beginning. You get what you deserve because you didn't do your homework. If you inherited the mess, my condolences. Somebody dropped the ball.

Sometimes the "higher-ups" make the decision (based only on price maybe?) and the QM/MR's pick is overridden. Maybe that's what you call inheriting the mess, I dunno. And maybe the people you interview seem just wonderful but the guy you get later as an auditor is a jerk. There are lots of ways things can go south. If I get my way the registrar will put in writing any additional requirements over and above ISO up-front, but there is no assurance I will get my way. :frust:

Reminds me of an interview process for a V.P. of Production that I was a part of in my prior job. Both guys had similar education and experience. To me, Mr. A seemed full of big talk but his actions (during 2 interviews)said something different, and Mr. B seemed much more aligned in words vs. actions. It was clear to me Mr. B was the better guy. But, out of 6 Sr. Staff interviewing them, I was the only one who voted for Mr. B. After about 9 months most of the voters admitted to me they made the wrong choice, but by then it was too late. The guy contributed heavily to the demise and later sale of the company. :(

Perry Johnson (I inherited them and worked with them from Dec 1996 - Dec 1999, don't know about current) - They required an internal written procedure for use of their registration mark.

NSF-ISR (our current registrar) - Requires a "Customer Complaint Log" and at a minimum quarterly management review. We already do keep a customer complaint log so this is no big deal. However, I do not have quarterly management reviews and will not until we see fit to for some reason. The fact that we do review some of our objectives on a monthly or quarterly basis and keep minutes has allowed us to not have to go toe to toe on this issue.

I might add here that there is nothing in any NSF-ISR literature or our contract that states these requirements. Our auditor informs us as these things come up. :mad:

NSF-ISR (our current registrar) - Requires a "Customer Complaint Log" and at a minimum quarterly management review. We already do keep a customer complaint log so this is no big deal. However, I do not have quarterly management reviews and will not until we see fit to for some reason. The fact that we do review some of our objectives on a monthly or quarterly basis and keep minutes has allowed us to not have to go toe to toe on this issue.

I might add here that there is nothing in any NSF-ISR literature or our contract that states these requirements. Our auditor informs us as these things come up. :mad:


Cari, that is interesting that you say that. I work for NSF-ISR on a subcontracting basis and I have not been informed of this. I placed a call to the Technical Manager to see if this is true and they knew nothing of it either. As far as I know they may give an OFI to have more frequent Mgmt Review if the system is failing or if Complaints are not being acted on.

If this is causing you problems you may want to contact them and let them know. Sounds like it might be your auditor saying this.

Thank you very much ISO Guy! I think every now and then our Auditor (who also subcontracts) slips into QS/TS mode while he is auditing our ISO company. Had I been forced into a position to appeal, I may have discovered that these things are not required. I am glad I mentioned the registrars name or you wouldn't have been able to look into it and correct my statement (and subsequently ease my mind).

PS - I have spoken to the Technical guy at NSF on a couple of occasions - I find him extremely knowledgeable and personable. I was impressed!

Nice work, Isoguy! Tried to give you more "karma" points but apparently I had already given you some recently and the system wouldn't let me! :vfunny:

Looks like there are issues of registrars adding requirements as well as individual auditors adding requirements on their own -- and maybe sometimes both! Great fun, huh? More and more I believe anyone who has yet to contract a registrar needs to get it in writing what, if any "extras" the registrar requires and then, if an auditor pulls something out of his hat as far as "extra" requirements that is not on the list you should have the power immediately available (by showing him/her the contract) to tell him, nicely of course, to pound sand.

Nice work, Isoguy! Tried to give you more "karma" points but apparently I had already given you some recently and the system wouldn't let me! :vfunny:

I sent him some for the both of us!

I might add here that there is nothing in any NSF-ISR literature or our contract that states these requirements. Our auditor informs us as these things come up. :mad:
That type of thing is really sad... Add in ISO Guy's comment and it really makes one wonder.

Nice work, Isoguy! Tried to give you more "karma" points but apparently I had already given you some recently and the system wouldn't let me! :vfunny:
Yeah - it makes people spread Karma around a bit.

A thought just occurred to me. Yeah, I do get thoughts once in a while. I remember a conversation I had with company president about a specific requirement the registrar was requiring (customer complain log). He wanted me to intervene on his behalf. The Management Rep (also the quality manager) took me aside and stated that she did not want to force the issue. The company has a terrible issue with responding to customer complaints. She knew that keeping up the log was the only discipline regarding handling customer complaints. Take that away, and customer complaints would be totally ignored. The conversation I had with the auditor took an entirely different direction. The requirement stayed.

Sometimes the auditor’s (or registrar’s) additional requirements end up making sense. As was mentioned earlier, what is worth fighting about?

We've seen this subject in who knows how mant threads here in the Cove. I make every attempt I can, during Lead Auditor courses, to tell my students "Don't add or make up your own requirements, keep to the prescribed, agreed to and arranged criteria." If I say it once, I say it 10 times. Hopefully it sticks, it apparently is not stressed by others or adhered to.

I think many of us (auditor types) acquire terminal cases of azzfacetous (head up azz) when we start being creative at the potential chagrin of others.

Thank you very much ISO Guy! I think every now and then our Auditor (who also subcontracts) slips into QS/TS mode while he is auditing our ISO company. Had I been forced into a position to appeal, I may have discovered that these things are not required. I am glad I mentioned the registrars name or you wouldn't have been able to look into it and correct my statement (and subsequently ease my mind).

PS - I have spoken to the Technical guy at NSF on a couple of occasions - I find him extremely knowledgeable and personable. I was impressed!

No problem Cari, I know hiw difficult it can be when auditors add thier own requirements. I don't think those requirements exisist even for QS/TS. Don't always accept the auditors word as gospel, if they are unable to provide evidence that the requirment exsists question it (be nice of course you never know when I may be your auditor LOL), if they have a problem with that ask for the Registrars appeals process.

P.S. Cari- I get to talk to the Technical Guy at NSF all the time, I learned quite a bit from him. Just don't tell him I said that, would make family functions difficult! LOL :vfunny:

That type of thing is really sad... Add in ISO Guy's comment and it really makes one wonder.

Marc, can you clarify please?

I don't think those requirements exisist even for QS/TS.

Our auditor does subcontract for more than one registrar. Perhaps he mixed 'em up? I would like to mention that we really like our auditor. He writes up good stuff that is truly value added. There have only been a couple of things that have come up over a three year period that I had questioned, but even these things did not turn out to be major issues.

These all tried, some on more than one occasion, to no avail:

LRQA (and the same auditor twice for cryin' out loud !)
ITS Intertek
UL
BVQI

Each time they did not accept my stand, I simply stopped the current activity and kindly asked for a conference call to their home office. Only one (LRQA) actually made the call and their boss insisted the audit finding was wrong. :mad:

After I challenged and did not back down on their 'findings', they tried to bail out by saying something to this effect: ".......just do it this time and we'll stay within the standard from here on out........". Do I have stupid written on my forehead ? (i know there's room, but c'mon). :p

This all happened after we explicitly documented & reviewed our supplier requirements with all the registrars. Hum......

Energy: "Overbearing pompous bottom feeders". What poetry ! I'll use this but add your name to the credits !

To All: HAVE A DAY ! :bigwave:

These all tried, some on more than one occasion, to no avail:

LRQA (and the same auditor twice for cryin' out loud !)
ITS Intertek
UL
BVQI
I don't have any experiences working wih the Bodies listed above, but an auditor should not be issuing a finding unless you are not addressing part of the standard, you are doing it poorly or you are not following one of your own documented procedures. With that being said, we need to remember that auditors are people (I know some don't think we are) to and they will make mistakes and when we do we need to be called on it, I am more than willing to listen to what you have to say but don't scream and argue, if we can't resolve the issue I am more than willing to walk you through the appeals process or have a confrence call with the home office. I am there to work with you not against you, it is my job to look for evidence of compliance, I am not there to seek and destroy that is the FDA's job LOL! Just remember we are not all "Overbearing pompous bottom feeders", some of us are actually nice people LOL.

I have run into a few good ones, but normally auditor specific, not registrar.

Pencil not allowed to fill out forms, because it can be erased. (Fought and won)

Missed a "shall" in the policy manual. My mistake when writing documents. Wrote a CA with root cause "Human Error. Consultant (me) missed requirement when writing manual." Auditor would not accept because "human error is never an acceptable root cause". He insisted that I "mis-interpreted" the standard. I argued I knew the requirement, we implemented the requirement, it was addressed in the procedure - just forgot a sentence of the polciy manual. Finally wrote it that way just to get him to move on. Thought about writing one to the registrar because he missed it on the off-site document review.

QS-9000 FMEA. Auditor insisted we needed to define in the procedure what RPN value initiated action. Fought and pointed to the section of the FMEA book that specifically stated there should be no pre-set action value - every FMEA should be evaluated independently of others. Won.

I have run into a few good ones, but normally auditor specific, not registrar.

Pencil not allowed to fill out forms, because it can be erased. (Fought and won)

Missed a "shall" in the policy manual. My mistake when writing documents. Wrote a CA with root cause "Human Error. Consultant (me) missed requirement when writing manual." Auditor would not accept because "human error is never an acceptable root cause". He insisted that I "mis-interpreted" the standard. I argued I knew the requirement, we implemented the requirement, it was addressed in the procedure - just forgot a sentence of the polciy manual. Finally wrote it that way just to get him to move on. Thought about writing one to the registrar because he missed it on the off-site document review.

QS-9000 FMEA. Auditor insisted we needed to define in the procedure what RPN value initiated action. Fought and pointed to the section of the FMEA book that specifically stated there should be no pre-set action value - every FMEA should be evaluated independently of others. Won.

maybe I am taking this the wrong way but why do you usethe word/term "fought", I would hope you have a rationale discussion. JMHO, I would prefer the consultant not respond to the findings it is the companies system they should be responding shouldn't they?

maybe I am taking this the wrong way but why do you usethe word/term "fought", I would hope you have a rationale discussion. JMHO, I would prefer the consultant not respond to the findings it is the companies system they should be responding shouldn't they?

I'm sure that when Auditors sit around and discuss the scalps collected during any given week, they sing the song, "They fought the law and the law won." :vfunny: Like some Cops in the locker room after a shift change who discuss how many heads they cracked that day. My reference to "bottom feeders" was directed, just like this is, to those Auditors who appreciate low hanging fruit and notches on their gun handles for trivial non-value added issues, rather than substantial ones. And they are in abundance. Your posts have always indicated that you do not fit that description. Relax, Youngster! :agree:

I'm sure that when Auditors sit around and discuss the scalps collected during any given week, they sing the song, "They fought the law and the law won." :vfunny: Like some Cops in the locker room after a shift change who discuss how many heads they cracked that day. My reference to "bottom feeders" was directed, just like this is, to those Auditors who appreciate low hanging fruit and notches on their gun handles for trivial non-value added issues, rather than substantial ones. And they are in abundance. Your posts have always indicated that you do not fit that description. Relax, Youngster! :agree:

Energy I agree there is many out there like that, even I have found myself being nasty on occasion when the QA Manager I am dealing with is being totally unreasonable and looking for a fight, I try not to be that way but it happens. I never have added my own interpretations, I will, however, “forget” that I saw something and just mention it in passing so as to give them the opportunity to fix the issue.

What do you mean relax, us bottom young bottom feeders don’t know how too! :vfunny:

If you inherited the mess, my condolences. Somebody dropped the ball.

I did, indeed, inherit the present mess. I've been here 6 weeks, and auditor #4 has been here for 10 years.

With auditor #1, there were no interviews. The company CEO signed the deal without input because a buddy CEO had used this registrar and liked them. Heavy sigh.

Auditor #2 was thoroughly interviewed. There were no surprises.

Auditor #3, I inherited, but found nothing unexpected because my ex-boss, who negotiated the contract, was an amazing man and did a great job.

BTW, I spent 11 years in Sales before my switch to quality. In sales I negotiated many contracts, and even battled my way through several T&C vs UCC legal issues. My specialty is business process improvement, which means I have a thorough understanding of how business processes link together.

I hope that the above explanation and a peek at my pedigree help settle any lingering doubts about my ability to interview a registrar and negotiate a contract.

maybe I am taking this the wrong way but why do you usethe word/term "fought", I would hope you have a rationale discussion. JMHO, I would prefer the consultant not respond to the findings it is the companies system they should be responding shouldn't they?

Perhaps discussed/questioned/argued would have been a better term. I have never gotten into a "fight" with an auditor.

During audits I only speak up if I am directly asked, I see my client clearly does not understand what is being asked for (I will clarify the question, not answer it), or if the auditor is wrong/implementing their opinion. I have never had an auditor have an issue with my presence.

If I am a consultant, contract hire, temp, full time employee, etc. I don't see why it matters if I participate in an audit. I do not answer questions that are not directed to me. I don't see it being any different than a Management Rep observing the audit on the shop floor. He/she can't answer for the line workers, but if the auditor starts asking questions that are out of line, is there to step in.

Our former Registrar/Notified body had a special requirment that they did not convey. When we left them they were holding one of our customers cert. hostage becuase we went with an American Registrar and they siad that the EU Notified bodies have an unwritten agreement that in order for our cert to be valid it had to be done by someone in their little circle, so being that we didnt want to lose our largest customer we had to do what they said. Ohh those German Registrars! :mad:

Sounds like coercion! Quit frankly this would be cause for complaint to the registrar's accrediting body and a call to the corporate legal department. The only cases I know of where an EU Notified body is required is for CE marking ... which applies to the product and not the system.

It would be curious how the registrar documents this requirement. If they conveyed this to you in writing, authorized by an officer of the company with their rationale ... you have document now to go back to your legal council to review for action.

Amazing too is how the accrediting bodies give credence to certain registrars, including use of uncertified auditors. Currently putting together a complaint through the secretary at IAF. :eek:

Sounds like coercion! Quit frankly this would be cause for complaint to the registrar's accrediting body and a call to the corporate legal department. The only cases I know of where an EU Notified body is required is for CE marking ... which applies to the product and not the system.

It would be curious how the registrar documents this requirement. If they conveyed this to you in writing, authorized by an officer of the company with their rationale ... you have document now to go back to your legal council to review for action.

Amazing too is how the accrediting bodies give credence to certain registrars, including use of uncertified auditors. Currently putting together a complaint through the secretary at IAF. :eek:

ISO Druid, the point that I made was it was an unwritten agreement, when pressed I was told this was their opinion. I kindly told the person I was spekaing with that his opinion is not a requirement and unless he could show me in writting where this was I would not accept, he didn't like the fact that I was questioning him bcame upset and said well your customer will not get a cert. until we audit you at a cost of course, what we did was switch to another NB which cost much less than TUV. What it amounted to was that TUV MS/PS was pulling this BS like many other companies we let them know we no longer required thier services. They are big boys in the Medical Arena but their customer service and people skills stink. JMO

Also see:

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6672

I do not take an overly defensive or aggressive stance when questioning an auditors findings - no matter how he/she is behaving. Most nonconforming reports or request for corrective action forms have a space for "Concur" or "Do Not Concur". First I ask the auditor to clarify the finding by showing me the shall - whether in the standard, the registrar contract, or our own documentation. If he cannot do this, yet still insists on writing up the finding - I mark "Do Not Concur" (if the form does not offer this, then I make a note of it next to my "Company Acknowledgement" signature) and then I put together a business case as to why we do not concur and submit this response in place of a corrective action plan. The registrars I have done this with in the past have accepted this without further incident or initiating an appeals process. I have not found this necessary with our current registrar/auditor at my current job.

Even if I feel I am justified or right - I do not always bother to make a big deal out of every issue. Here is an example of an auditor finding that I refused to correct:

During the first surveillance audit a Perry Johnson auditor (I started working for my last employer right after their registration audit) would not accept my explaination that we would not calibrate steel rules or tape measures. The company was an automotive sheetmetal prototype house. They are a shop full of skilled machinists, fabricators, press operators/die tryout, pattern/mold and foundry personnel. She found the tape measure in the foundry - the guys used rough measurements to build the frames. I explained that there could be 3+ scales in every guys box (approx 100 guys on the floor) - adding hundreds of instruments to our calibration procedure at no added value. I explained to her that there is not a tolerance for the frames - they are made out of wood and only have to be big enough for the pattern and room for the sand to pack. I further explained that she could interview any operator and they would be able to respond that they chose their measuring instruments based on the tolerance of the measurement. Nobody would use a steel rule or tape measure if the tolerance was +/-.002". I further pointed out that I could not calibrate steel rules, I could only verify their condition as they were not adjustable. She said we should buy a certified steel rule (ouch - $$$ - it would have to be long enough to verify all lengths of scales in house) and compare it to the new steel rule at the time it is bought - and then add them to my calibration program stipulating that the condition is verified. To this I pulled out my old Metrology 101 text book and showed her the chapter on steel rules and their measurement uncertainty, how different manufacturers could have way different etchings. These are not precision instruments and besides - how do I stick a calibration sticker to it! I suggested that she look at work instructions and procedures and see that no where would she find that work is verified or approved using steel rules or tape measures. They are used for roughed in (large tolerance) dimensions like foundry frames and rough blank development, sometimes as box openers :rolleyes:

Well, she would not back down from her position so she wrote it up and I "Did Not Concur". Perry Johnson recommended continued registration even though I did not concur with 4 out of 6 minors she wrote that day, I provided corrective action plans only for the other 2. Though all of this occured without any argumentive tones between the auditor and myself - I specifically requested to the audit coordinator in writing that that auditor never be sent to our facility again.

This is an example of an auditor's interpretation - not additonal requirements from the registrar. It would have cost a small fortune and taken many manhours to add steel rules to our calibration program - for no added value. This was, IMO, a hill to die for. Not all are. I decide with input from our management team how to address questionable auditor findings - however we always respond professionally and respectfully.

ISO Druid, the point that I made was it was an unwritten agreement, when pressed I was told this was their opinion. I kindly told the person I was spekaing with that his opinion is not a requirement and unless he could show me in writting where this was I would not accept, he didn't like the fact that I was questioning him bcame upset and said well your customer will not get a cert. until we audit you at a cost of course, what we did was switch to another NB which cost much less than TUV. What it amounted to was that TUV MS/PS was pulling this BS like many other companies we let them know we no longer required thier services. They are big boys in the Medical Arena but their customer service and people skills stink. JMO

Good point and more companies should speak up like you did. My point ... I highly suggest that you follow-up with a compliant through their complaints systems which their lead auditor should have described ... at least their appeals process. Also, if not successful a complaint to their accrediting body because what you are describing is completely unethical on the part of the registrar ... especially the threats. If that fails the IAF ... http://www.iaf.nu/complaints.asp. Unfortunately too many never document their complaints and the auditor/registrar continues their poor practices.

I agree with your approach! :smokin:

Well, she would not back down from her position so she wrote it up and I "Did Not Concur". Perry Johnson recommended continued registration even though I did not concur with 4 out of 6 minors she wrote that day, I provided corrective action plans only for the other 2. Though all of this occured without any argumentive tones between the auditor and myself - I specifically requested to the audit coordinator in writing that that auditor never be sent to our facility again.

Good point ... hopefully PJ's entered this into the complaint log they are required to keep.

Tape measures calibration ... good point on the tolerance issue. What is being measured and does this effect quality of product? NIST communicated to me that traceability to a national standard is available for tape measures and that the tolerancing has no bearing on the requirement to provide such traceability for any such measuring equipment that is used to verify product quality. The foundry frames and rough blank development hardly qualify as quality attributes.

But the main point ... was the auditor micro-auditing rather than stepping back and seeing if the overall system was effective? My past experience as lead auditor was that with ISO 9001 there was some discretion as to nonconformance versus observation (not allowed in some requirements such as QS-9000 or ISO/TS 16949) or opportunity for improvement. There must be some value-add to this audit process. :smokin:

I do not take an overly defensive or aggressive stance when questioning an auditors findings - however we always respond professionally and respectfully.

For brevity sake I shortened what you said Cari.

The PJ clod is a typical example of someone who probably has no hands-on experience (that's why it is stressed by the RAB for accreditation).

We used ( and some still do BTW) to balance Main Rotor systems on helicopters with duct tape and then weigh the tape and place the corresponding lead weights into the blade pins for final balance prior to tracking (tracking we did with grease pencils and a flag arrangement-loads of fun). I used to dynamic balance tail rotors with spray paint. Try to calibrate all that neat stuff. You can't, but it works. Quite a bit of adjustment work done on aircraft systems is with the good old steel rule or tape measure and sometimes with the calibrated M-1 Eyeball. Was this stuff critical for product performance? Oh, yeah!!! But it was accepted practice because it worked, it was recognized, and the folks doing it were "Competent" based on training, education and experience.

I may have gotten off topic some, but I'll bet I did tell you something you didn't know.

Cari,
I went through the same exact thing with our first auditor from KPMG. Turned out that they didn't even know if she had passed the certification exam and she was along for the experience (1st audit). It wasn't until the closing meeting on the 2nd day that the Lead told us she had passed!

It is the ignorance and arrogance that gets me going. Some of them have a "god" complex. Those are the ones that are shown the door. And those are the ones that give the whole group a bad rap.

It is the ignorance and arrogance that gets me going. Some of them have a "god" complex. Those are the ones that are shown the door. And those are the ones that give the whole group a bad rap.

Agreed!! I have had the pleasure of working with a couple of very competent auditors (some even worked for Perry Johnson), and others I bit the inside of my cheek all day. I had an Entella auditor who talked down to everyone he interviewed, including me. It was very hard to keep my bearing. I got through the day, I concurred with his one minor he wrote (it was indeed an accurate finding), after he left we all went out for a beer. Then I contacted the registrar a few months before our next audit to request a different auditor.

In my long winded example earlier in this thread, as Randy stated, this really was clear indication of a lack of hands on experience. I later found out that this lady (who by the way was very pleasant and professional throughout the whole audit) was a lawyer before becoming an auditor. This may have something to do with her "micro auditing". She was more concerned with the letter of the law than the intent.

I hope that the above explanation and a peek at my pedigree help settle any lingering doubts about my ability to interview a registrar and negotiate a contract.

Rosie,
The way you stick to your guns and take on the bad guys like R***Y, there's no doubt in my mind!! :vfunny: :smokin:

Bad guy? Little ol' me? :rolleyes:

Nahh! I'm a creampuff...just ask Lucinda if she ever show up again. ;)

I don't have any experiences working wih the Bodies listed above, but an auditor should not be issuing a finding unless you are not addressing part of the standard, you are doing it poorly or you are not following one of your own documented procedures. With that being said, we need to remember that auditors are people (I know some don't think we are) to and they will make mistakes and when we do we need to be called on it, I am more than willing to listen to what you have to say but don't scream and argue, if we can't resolve the issue I am more than willing to walk you through the appeals process or have a confrence call with the home office. I am there to work with you not against you, it is my job to look for evidence of compliance, I am not there to seek and destroy that is the FDA's job LOL! Just remember we are not all "Overbearing pompous bottom feeders", some of us are actually nice people LOL.

Not all are auditors are 'bottom feeders". I have had several fantastic auditors that truly work with you and it is indeed a pleasure. Bottom feeders apply to those trying to diminish you by exercising some type of superficial authority. I have no respect for any person, not just auditors, that try to pull a fruitless power game ! Good to see you're one of the good guys ! ;)

That type of thing is really sad... Add in ISO Guy's comment and it really makes one wonder.
I quoted myself as this is the post the person who e-mailed me is referring to.

I have no idea why this person wanted to go through regular e-mail, but I don't discuss things in regular e-mail. That's why I set up forums some years back. I took his name out, but you know who you are. Please don't start debates with me via e-mail. If you can't say something here, e-mailing me won't help. This also applies to PMing me.

To reply to the last 'round', the response just below (...On 8/2/03 12:13 PM, XXX wrote:...), there very well may have been a mis-communication. But it doesn't sound like it as I read it. It sounds like the auditor came up with something for some reason which, it appears, is not in fact part of the registrars requirements.

As for 'bashing' (a word now used by many folks when anyone criticizes something that is 'dear' to them in some way) registrars, it may be that you are oversensitized and define complaining or discussing 'bad' aspects as bashing. If I take your position, I could just say heck - never discuss anything about a registrar because if you say something bad you are 'bashing' that registrar. Which is silly.

You may know the auditor in question (which unfortunately will pull this to a personal level to you, I'm sure) and that auditor may be good and fair. But those are your words. If the auditor presented to me a requirement which the registrar had not documented or previously made known (such as after the initial document review, at the pre-assessment, in contract documents or otherwise) I would not accept it and I would complain. If the auditor is 'good', why was inaccurate information communicated to the customer? And if inaccurate information was communicated to the customer by the auditor, how many other 'miscommunications' have occurred.

As far as 'extra' requirements themselves go - such as signed management review meeting minutes, a procedure for use of the mark, etc. - I couldn't care less as long as it is communicated before signing of any contract. If a registrar requires that the management rep do 100 sit-ups and then eat a cheese Danish in management review meetings, no big deal. But don't come to me during an audit and tell me that. Let me know up front.

The good thing about these forums is you CAN voice your concerns, complaints and experiences without your message being 'politically correctly' removed. Registrars may be sacred to you but they are just regular companies to me.

I am not saying all registrars are good or all are bad, but rather some have questionable practices and sometimes they outright goof up. And sometimes it's purely the auditor's goof or mininterpretation.

If I buy a Ford and it turns out to be a 'lemon' I'll complain. You may work for Ford and call my complaining 'Bashing', but tough. To me it's a complaint and if you don't like it I could care less. You can come back and try to put me on the defensive by accusing me of 'bashing' Ford, but that won't entice me to buy another Ford. I wouldn't treat a registrar any differently. There are hundreds of registrars out there to choose from.

As a last comment, another thing I find which I believe is very sad is that most of the participants here are afraid to say anything about their registrar, especially naming them. This can only mean they expect retribution if anyone says anything bad about them. If you're afraid of your registrar...... What does that tell us?

> On 8/2/03 12:13 PM, XXX wrote:
> Maybe there was a miscommunication on the part of both parties. Don't be
> quick to bash the Registrars like quite a few do. It is not a requirement
> that was the auditors intreptation I know who the auditor was in this case
> and he is very good and fair.
> --------------------------
>> On 8/1/03 12:45 PM, XXX wrote:
>> Quote:
>> Originally Posted by Cari Spears
>> I might add here that there is nothing in any NSF-ISR literature or our
>> contract that states these requirements. Our auditor informs us as these
>> things come up.
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> That type of thing is really sad... Add in ISO Guy's comment and it really
>> makes one wonder.
>>
>> Can you explain your comment please?
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Sure. Cari said she was not made aware of the 'requirement' until an auditor
> told her. To me that's pretty sad.
>
> ISO Guy said it's not a requirement, if I understood correctly - and that makes
> me wonder. There's a contradiction. Or maybe I've missed something.

Marc, can you clarify please?
Haven't gotten by this thread in a few days - don't have time to read every new post in every thread every day - see above.

I got a chance to read this thread and have this to say:

All registrars are not bad. Nor are all auditors bad.

I use my Dad's old 10-70-20% rule. In any profession and business, 10% are excellent, 70% are good or sufficient, and 20% are 'bad' whether due to incompentence or what have you. There are good plumbers and there are doctors who are dangerous.

As to the 'bottom feeders' analogy, we all have opinions.

There are lot's of nutrients in mud!! :biglaugh:

But in this new era of auditing not just for compliance but also for effectiveness, and the demand from organisations that auditing be a value adding experience, shouldnt we expect to see suggestions from auditors on best (or better) practice that may well not be explicitly stated in ISO9001:2000, yet nevertheless may improve our business performance ?

Do we all need to get out of the 'compliance' mind set ? We all know you can drive a coach and horses through the so called 'requirements' of the standard, hence a compliance audit is largely useless and tells us nothing of how good or bad we might actually be.

Should we perhaps entertain all suggestions from the auditor, analyse them internally, then implement them or reject them with some justification for our actions ?

This is how I treat all comments from external audits, whether they be official corrective action requests, observations, opportunities for improvement, or off the record comments.

If we enter into this confrontational approach to audits, where the auditor is the enemy, and we continue to throw up the 'show me in the standard' defense we will undoubtedly get what we pay for - non value adding, de-motivating external audits.

If we enter into this confrontational approach to audits, where the auditor is the enemy, and we continue to throw up the 'show me in the standard' defense we will undoubtedly get what we pay for - non value adding, de-motivating external audits.

A voice of reason ... thank you M Greenaway.

Having been a lead auditor since the 1987 version of the standard and having becoming certified to several additional sector specific requirements, I took it as a personal goal to assure the customer had a value add audit including detailed and timely reporting with thoughts of improvement for the next audit. I used to hear my new plane travel acquaintances complain of this or that auditor (RE: the auditor as an enemy) and asked me how my customers perceived the audits. Response ... customer satisfaction and requests for quotes for other sites. Quality Digest posted reviews of registrars (Rating the Registrars) ... a great guide for starting the registrar selection process in my humble opinion. From first hand experience and in my humble opinion, those listed at the bottom of the heap truely deserved their ratings (RE: http://www.qualitydigest.com/july01/html/results.html).

The economy fell unfortunately (small violin playing) and I was unceremoniously replaced by uncertified auditors and an "easy" auditor (one that lacked adequate knowledge of the customer's processes and the standard). Several clients called at home to complaint and dropped the registrar as a result.

In retrospect, the satisfaction I have from the audit experience is the development of close partnering relationships with customers ... so it is refreshing to hear a few pro-auditor comments on this site.

PS: Advertisement - out of work, certified, diligent, effective customer oriented auditor looking for work .... will work for food!

PPS: Arrogant, self-serving auditors had no place on my audit teams and were promptly shown the door as well as follow-up with documented complaint and call to management for corective action.
:smokin:

If we enter into this confrontational approach to audits, where the auditor is the enemy, and we continue to throw up the 'show me in the standard' defense we will undoubtedly get what we pay for - non value adding, de-motivating external audits.

Well put Martin,

There will always be clashes, but if we start out expecting them they will occur more frequently than they would necessarily have to.

/Claes

... shouldnt we expect to see suggestions from auditors on best (or better) practice that may well not be explicitly stated in ISO9001:2000, yet nevertheless may improve our business performance ?

Do we all need to get out of the 'compliance' mind set ?

Should we perhaps entertain all suggestions from the auditor, analyse them internally, then implement them or reject them with some justification for our actions ?

If we enter into this confrontational approach to audits, where the auditor is the enemy, and we continue to throw up the 'show me in the standard' defense we will undoubtedly get what we pay for - non value adding, de-motivating external audits.

Should we entertain suggestions from the auditor politely and with an open mind? SURE! Absolutely. But a suggestion, while always welcome, is different than the auditor making-up his/her own "shalls". Who says the auditor is better able than those in the company to determine what works best and what doesn't? Sometimes maybe yes, often no. If you're auditing me, suggestions are always welcome, but as far as my cert. goes (passing or failing the audit), just stick to the ISO "shalls' please.

Should we entertain suggestions from the auditor politely and with an open mind? SURE! Absolutely. But a suggestion, while always welcome, is different than the auditor making-up his/her own "shalls". Who says the auditor is better able than those in the company to determine what works best and what doesn't? Sometimes maybe yes, often no. If you're auditing me, suggestions are always welcome, but as far as my cert. goes (passing or failing the audit), just stick to the ISO "shalls' please.

I understand and agree with you on this Mike. Most companies do like to receive suggestions on how other companies accomplish certain tasks from the auditor, as they have usually seen many, many ways to accomplish the same thing. What works for one may not work for another. The only thing ISO auditors should be writing up as a N/C is if the shalls are not covered or are being implementd poorly and the system is not effective. Other than that IMO, suggestions shoud just be thrown out as food for thought and they company can takem or leavem.

Martin, Mike, ISO Guy

I agree with all of you. Some of the best "suggestions" from our auditor, often in the form of several leading questions, have been "off topic" as far as a very strict interpretation of the standard would go. I consider them valuable free advice.

Of course if I just wanted the cert, thank you very much, the "off topic" remarks would just be seen as tampering. So, maybe for auditors, the way in which a suggestion is taken can be an indication of if the certificate is the only goal.


Craig

Getting in a little late (again!). First on the tape measure calibration. I worked with a company that made cube walls. The tolerance was +/- .250. The guys measuring all had years of experience at this particular shop. The auditor wrote up a nonconformance for lack of calibration. The auditors point was can you absolutely depend on the measurement? The end guides wear and eventually you will be measuring long.

The solution was to hang a piece of bar stock cut at a calibrated lenght. On a daily basis, each operator would check his/her tape measure against the known length. No record was ever made, and no tape measure was ever found to have excessive wear. Most tape measures were replace within six months because the retraction mechanism would break, and the tape would not retract automatically. Because the tape measures would get locked in one location, they often would break at just over six feet. In either case death occured before the end rivets became loose.

The important thing is to listen to the auditor. A nonconformance needs to be connected to a "shall". Even if it is a stretch, ask yourself if the auditor really has a point. In most cases, they might (there's a precise statement :rolleyes: ). If they do make a point, even if it is not a nonconformance, then ask if you should adopt it.

Good Morning!

Back from a long weekend and catching up. I may be mistaken, but I believe that I may need to clear up this issue about our auditor. First of all, in this and other threads, I have stated how pleased we have been with our auditor for the last three years. For the last two '94 surveillance audits he was happy to spend some time looking at my upgrade stuff, our organizational goals, some data we had been collecting, my in progress manual, our process maps, and on and on. He came on-site to do our 9k2k desk audit, when it is usually done off site, because he feels we get better feedback that way. His auditing style puts our employees at ease during interviewing, he's quick with the small joke and approaches the interviews as if he's simply interested in what they do all day. His gigs are always value added and aimed at top management. I rarely disagree with him on interpretation issues and if I do, he is always a good listener. We discuss, we do not argue or fight. If I am still not convinced, I try to verify through other sources, including these forums. Call me a critical thinker.

There was no misinterpretation on my part. He stated that the registrar required quarterly management reviews. He is human, he is entitled to a mistake every now and then. I am in no way bashing him or our registrar. Our auditor subcontracts for more than one registrar, and he audits more than just ISO. It is my opinion, after ISO GUY kindly researched and posted to the contrary, that one of his other registrars must have this requirement.

Our registrar wants to see signatures for all meetings. Weekly quality meetings, management review meetings, etc. They also like to see a "master list of docs/records" which is never mentioned in the standard. They are a generally accepted practice but not a requirement.

Also in the past they have issued us CA's because we do not have enough internal auditors. There is no requirement that I can find stating you must have so many auditors. We are continuously growing and don't add auditors as fast as we grow some of them quit working here and some drop out as auditors for work reasons. We do add them when we can though.

Sean posted,
"Our registrar wants to see signatures for all meetings. Weekly quality meetings, management review meetings, etc. They also like to see a "master list of docs/records" which is never mentioned in the standard. They are a generally accepted practice but not a requirement."

We all have "wants and wishes" What ever is practical for your organization and meets the specification is all that's required.

"Also in the past they have issued us CA's because we do not have enough internal auditors. There is no requirement that I can find stating you must have so many auditors. We are continuously growing and don't add auditors as fast as we grow some of them quit working here and some drop out as auditors for work reasons. We do add them when we can though."

I would question the competence of the auditor. Any auditor that writes an NCR without citing a requirement should not be auditing!

Also in the past they have issued us CA's because we do not have enough internal auditors. There is no requirement that I can find stating you must have so many auditors. We are continuously growing and don't add auditors as fast as we grow some of them quit working here and some drop out as auditors for work reasons. We do add them when we can though.
If the auditor has objective evidence that internal audits are not effective due to not enough auditors they could write a nonconformity. If it is just their opinion that you should have more, then the most they should do is document an "opportunity for improvement" and let you decide if you want to act on it.

This begs the question - should the auditor report the symptom or the root cause ?

Maybe he identified that audits were behind schedule - should he have left it at that ?

Maybe a little further probing promted the response 'well we dont have enough auditors' - hence he cited the resource issue.

I cant believe that an auditor woudl have a notion of how many auditors you need, and raise a non-compliance against this notion.

This begs the question - should the auditor report the symptom or the root cause ?
If he reports the root cause s/he is actually consulting by problem solving for you. IMO, as a auditor, if I go any further than to report my findings, not symptoms and not root cause, then I'm getting myself into a place that I may not want or need to be.
Reporting symptoms and or root cause is the purpose of the internal audits.

Have worked for some that require a full round of internal audits annually. Aand "timely" CA response/closure.

NQA for one.

CAR? I sort of agree...they don't put a time frame ...that depends on the company, but want to see activity in a fair amount of time.

I agree with annual audits too, except for some infrequent stuff going on, but generally its good practice. All they are concerrned with is the system elements, not all the processes......

IMS perfers the above but does not have a mandated requirement. As long as the system is working properly.

Registrar is SRI and we're ISO 9001:2000 (boy, that feels so goooood to say)

Requirements:


Job Descriptions - Company policy not to have them, but we're now evolving in that direction (for better or for worse).
Housekeeping - We've been written up for hoses on the floor and the way material is stacked in our warehouse (yeah, I know...handling, storage, blah blah blah)
APQP type planning - Fighting tooth and nail and currently winning


Those are just three that I can think of. There are probably some other smaller ones that have escaped my mind. But if you really think about the evolution of your Management System, it probably has evolved to Continually Improve, but I would not be surprised if for every change proposed, someone was asking "What will our Registrar think of this?". Implies a lot about the power/sway these organizations hold over our Management System.

Housekeeping - We've been written up for hoses on the floor and the way material is stacked in our warehouse (yeah, I know...handling, storage, blah blah blah)

Just a quick note:

I don't see that as registrar specific. I do the same thing every now and then in internal audits.

If I find a workplace in disorder I strongly suspect that the work being performed there will turn out to be less than satisfactory too. When I get that feeling I lean on ISO9001:2000 clause 6.4. (As for handling of the products: 7.5.5)

See for instance Office improvement - best practice (http://www.elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6428) Many of the posts there point out how harmfull a messy workspace can be. The same is valid in the workshop, of course. Hmmmm. Maybe the note wasn't so quick after all ;)

/Claes

I have some tried and true registrars that I continually use, and recommend. BUT that said, a client that is near and dear to me has been acquired by a parent company that uses BVQI. they want all sites to use the same registrar....so we are having our initial visit, (the 9K2K conversion) visit coming up next month.

What culture shock should I be aware of?

I tend to be critical of auditors...in that I hold them to a certain standard ......and do not take incompetence or ignorance or "additions" well at all. To date I have ignored the fact that they are a different registrar/auditor, and just went about my business doing my thing. Now with all that done, I am starting to wonder (especially after reading this thread) what I am in for.......I have no qualms about the system, the company committment or the presentation. they are ready. Have been registered since 1991...........and for all the right reasons, driving CI, and monitoring all along.

I have had ZERO interaction with BVQI, nor have I heard any stories, good or bad. So let it rip.......praise or condemn...LOL

Barb, my first registrar in 1992 was BVQI. Maybe they've mellowed since the early days, (I haven't worked with them since 1995) but I found them to be fairly rigid in their approach. They were the ones who (as I mentioned earlier in this thread) required that the Quality Policy be memorized. When I called for clarification on something, I was met with a fairly rigid response of, "We can't consult". One of their auditors took exception to a metric conversion chart hanging on a wall, because we couldn't show traceability to NIST. (Huh? The formula doesn't ever change, buddy!)

My next experience was with BSI, who was very helpful, and whose microbiologist did a marvelous job of acquainting me with the wonderful world of sterile product validation. It was my and my company's first time through a sterile product validation, and I would have been sunk without her guidance.

Two very different approaches. Guess which one brought me the most value?

Maybe BVQI has mellowed with time, and maybe none of this will be an issue because we all know a lot more about ISO than we did in 1992.

Are you saying you like BSI auditor's?

Thank you Rosie. Im so flattered :o

Are you saying you like BSI auditor's?

Thank you Rosie. Im so flattered :o

I very much enjoyed and benefited form the ones I had, Randy, darlin'. Presuming, from your comments, that you audit for BSI, I'm SURE I would have remembered having you! :D

thanks, rosie

I bet they had to mellow....to keep competitive. I am actually looking forward to it, a new network to explore!!!!! I really feel its the people who make or break a registrar anyway...the office help and the auditors...the old "a spoon full of sugar" routine

Do you know if they use contract or designated auditors?
bb

thanks, rosie

Do you know if they use contract or designated auditors?
bb

They used both, and still do, I believe.

BSI does...I contract to the auditing side of the house on occasion for 9K & 14K (mainly I contract to BSI Training).

And yes Rosie, you'd remember me, I do my best to make the experience pleasant (even enjoyable I hope) for all parties.

I don't know, Babe. If you show up looking like your avatar, I'd give up and go home! Nothing like having your auditor show up in camo!

Didn't I cut a dashing figure back then? You should have seen me in my Blues with all my medals and shiney junk......turned ladies to jelly and made the dudes go "Whew" ;)

Just a quick note:

I don't see that as registrar specific. I do the same thing every now and then in internal audits.

If I find a workplace in disorder I strongly suspect that the work being performed there will turn out to be less than satisfactory too. When I get that feeling I lean on ISO9001:2000 clause 6.4. (As for handling of the products: 7.5.5)

See for instance Office improvement - best practice (http://www.elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6428) Many of the posts there point out how harmfull a messy workspace can be. The same is valid in the workshop, of course. Hmmmm. Maybe the note wasn't so quick after all ;)

/Claes

Having worked with three Registrars in my various jobs, my current Registrar is the only one who ever included housekeeping as part of their audit. Yes, it is part of infrastructure, too, and is included as part of my internal audits. We also have 5S audits and housekeeping key indicators for many departments, as we try to become a "clean" mill.

My concern is if that was our only finding on an external audit...to receive conditional approval because of a hose on the ground? It could be a maintenance day - hoses on the ground are a dime a dozen as the equipment is being worked on.

We're big on trying to be clean here, but sometimes....sometimes....we tend to focus more on getting good product out the door than whether the lines on the floor need to be repainted. ;)

We're big on trying to be clean here, but sometimes....sometimes....we tend to focus more on getting good product out the door than whether the lines on the floor need to be repainted. ;)
Likewise, so I can relate to that, but on the other hand one thing doesn't have to exclude the other... ;) :agree:

/Claes

Likewise, so I can relate to that, but on the other hand one thing doesn't have to exclude the other... ;) :agree:

/Claes

Agreed. Did we just have our first fight-and-make-up session? ;)

Agreed. Did we just have our first fight-and-make-up session? ;)
No Maam (You told us "Don't treat me any differently than you would the Queen" didn't you?) ;), just a friendly chat, imo.

/Claes

"If he reports the root cause s/he is actually consulting by problem solving for you."

Fully agree ... but sometimes the auditor must do some prompting ... and walk the fine line between objectivity and consulting.

The one that killed me was an audiror that proposed that a master document list must be in the form of "some microsoft format." :whip:

Al...

The one that killed me was an audiror that proposed that a master document list must be in the form of "some microsoft format." What? :lol: That's one I haven't heard before... I'd love to see him defend that requirement.

/Claes

Our auditor, (from CRS) is requiring that we map out our processes on turtle diagrams. In fact, he went so far as to give me a blank of the exact format he wanted them on.

He also wants me to change my document control log, and once again, gave me the format that he wants to see it on. He wants me to take all of my forms & records from my old format, and transfer them to his new format. Oh Joy!

Jonell

Hi Jonell:
Sounds like your auditor was very perscriptive and started consulting and has therefore disqualified themselves from auditing your organization. Its in the Guide 62! Suggest a complaint to the registrar and if that fails .... RAB (or their accrediting body). If that fails ... a complaint to the IAF secreteriat (Mr. Jim Owens). I am starting now to have a little more success with IAF in "righting the wrong". There is plenty of competition out there and if the registrar blows you off suggest shopping for another. Quality Digest had some very good reviews in their archives (Eagle was at the top at one time).
I was lead auditor with a large registrar here in the US and overseas. Several times I found an auditor on my team consulting. I took them aside and told them to knock it off. For repeat offenders I had them removed from my team with a report to the certification council and upper management and was told that this was not consulting. This was also reported to the RAB (Randy Dougherty) and who told me that my complaint was not justified. A follow-up with IAF is still pending. IAF has forced RAB to reopen their investigation of the registrar based on my original complaint several years ago. RAB can't ignore the fact that we forwarded them the actual documents that the auditor passed onto the organization (documents obtained from another organization). They can't be that dense. :mad:
RAB has shown extreme bias and prejudice in the past and hopefully IAF will straighten them out. :whip:
We need to be making a stronger stance against this corruption of this original concept of unbiased third party audits for the ISO 9000 series of standards and sector specific requirements. :agree1:
I must commend Elsmar Cove for this excelent forum. :applause:
Cheers ....

Hi Al:
"The one that killed me was an audiror that proposed that a master document list must be in the form of "some microsoft format." " I would love to see this turkey audit some of my Amish clients. :mg:

Sounds like this auditor has stock in Microsoft. :nope: The only time I ever say a perscriptive requirement that ever came close to this was Chrysler's requirement for their QS-9000 suppliers to use PowerWay. :argue:

Cheers :cool:

Hi Al:
"The one that killed me was an audiror that proposed that a master document list must be in the form of "some microsoft format." " I would love to see this turkey audit some of my Amish clients. :mg:


ISO Druid, I'd love to hear about your Amish clients. Do tell!

For others of you who are auditors, what was the most unusual cliet you ever audited?

For Post today by Rosie ... Hi! :o
Thanks for asking about the Amish. Very strict and abiding people by history of their culture. Kids had their own offshoot company and were equipped with PCs to the teeth and were doing quite well. Pa was still debating ISO for his side of the business. Everything on his side was non-electrical and thus all procedures were either in writing or verbal or training. He did have a typewriter. An objective auditor firstly would not have started consulting and secondly would not have had a preconception of what the client (auditee) should be implementing, especially if he/she clearly understood the business processes and the client's capabilities, much less their culture. I will admit as an auditor I would "prefer" to see some master list, and if the client was PC-friendly would give some general prompts (w/o consulting) as to areas for improvement and efficiency ... but never a mandate! Yeeks :mad:
Thanks for asking. :agree1:

For Original Post by Barb in Oct 2003 .... Hi Barb! :o
Feedback on BVQI ... sorry I did not go back to the beginning of this post you had. Experiences with BVQI? Not that good. Firstly, I have seen that their auditors do not like consultants doing audits for clients, (even state so during the audit) despite the fact that their guidance newsletter even states that they would accept a consultant as a management rep!!!! (NOT! :mad:) We also found that their auditing style was not thorough. One of the big three in Detroit - subtly has shown a dislike for the registrar. In fact, recently in my contract negotiations - a client explicitly stated they would have nothing to do with BVQI. Perhaps a better guide to selection would be a survey - I still find myself referencing back to Quality Digest - Rating the Registrars July 2001 :agree1: RE: http://www.qualitydigest.com/july01/html/results.html. I find that although this is old material ... many registrars (names withheld) I have dealt with are set in their ways and have done little to improve. (Another thread on Elsmar went into possibilities of why QD no longer does such surveys. RE: http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6831) I do know that my past registrar aggressively attacked QD for their results. :mg: )

Its nice to see forums like these where freedom of speech and finding the truth are held in high regard. :agree1:

Our registrar noted in his last audit report that the safety glasses we had available for visitors at our branch location had scratches on them and that we should send new safety glasses to the branch immediately.

I appreciate his concern for safety and I think that it DOES fall under infrastructure, but our thoughts were that the safety glasses DO what they are intended to DO - they protect the person's eyes! HIS thought was that giving some safety glasses with scratches on them shows that our company doesn't care about safety...

What did that have to do with our audit? I guess it was important to him and we sent new glasses the next day so that everyone is happy - but I wonder if he really could have made that "stick"?

Hi little__cee: :D
I would humbly submit that in my personal opinion that the auditor probably could have made it stick from the safety standpoint. :truce: I will add that in a value-add relationship why would he/she even think of adding this to their report when it was an easy fix? What value-add was gained? I think a more major issue was in one case where I observed no railing around acid tanks. :mg:

We had a similar situation where a client specifically stated that we auditors were responsible for providing our own safety gear. My management stated they had to. As lead auditor I disagreed ... this was standard safety gear and every auditor that was accredited in this particular scope should have had such gear. This should all be negotiated upfront in the contract review (it had been :read: ). I was more inclined to leave the troublesome auditor behind since the contract had already been negotiated and we were responsible for safety gear. I won out and the registrar company I worked for covered the cost of the safety gear. :lol:

It is amazing how the adage that power corrupts applies to so many auditors out there - again from what I have read here and from extensive personal experience as lead auditor for two major registrars in the US and Europe.
:nopity:

I will add that in a value-add relationship why would he/she even think of adding this to their report when it was an easy fix? What value-add was gained?

Ms. Cynical here....maybe the easy fix item was documented, just to have something documented. With our Registrar, any nonconformance, no matter how minor, results in "Conditional Approval". As long as something is found, we will not receive "Full Approval"....that will be gained upon addressing the NC's.

If we receive "Full Approval" on an audit, then the Registrar will reschedule our audit frequency to once a year, instead of once every 8 months.

By finding nonconformances, no matter how minor, we retain a result of "Conditional Approval" and have to pay to have more audits. Sounds rather like a money grabbing scheme to me....

Hi Roxane: :D
Yes it sounds like a money making scheme. With the registrars I worked for we put annual clients on six month audits only for new/immature systems and only if major nonconformities were noted. However even within that one registrar there were at least two auditors noted for making extra $$$$ from return audits. PRI/NADCAP is notorious for this with their special process audits. I clued a client into the appeals and complaint process and even having their corporate attorney sit in on the opening and closing meetings for possible legal action (extortion). And they are a monopoly for the aerospace primes. Not legal in my book. :mad: Field needs to be opened up but don't even try talking to those arrogant bone heads at AAQG. They don't even have a policy for confidential complaint system nor will they consider one! :mad: I know in at least one case where another auditor threatened a client during the audit and they threw him out. RAB is doing a pitiful job of enforcing Guide 62 in my humble opinion. :mad:
Otherwise it was a good way to lose business by taking the client to the bank. Might be time to shop around? Does the auditor even offer an appeals process during the closing meeting? He may have a major nonconformity if this is not covered! :yes:

Hi Roxane: :D
PRI/NADCAP is notorious for this with their special process audits. I clued a client into the appeals and complaint process and even having their corporate attorney sit in on the opening and closing meetings for possible legal action (extortion). And they are a monopoly for the aerospace primes. Not legal in my book.

ISO Druid, if you haven't given up yet, you might want to try the Nadcap Ethics committee

http://www.pri.sae.org/Nadcap/supplier/ethics.htm

Hi Sidney:
Thanks much for the valuable information on the NADCAP ethics group.

:D