Registrars offering to perform Second Party Audits - Have they failed their role?

Most registrars operating in the USA these days offer second-party audit services.

Certainly, they could not perform those services for an organization that they certify, since supplier evaluation is a process of the QMS that can not be outsourced to the registrar due to conflict of interest.

But, besides that, isn't the fact that the offering exists an attestation that the third-party certification role has been failed? By the same registrars?

If we had a reliable, confidence-delivering 3rd party certification process, why would we need registrars for 2nd party-audits?

My first google hit from [ Second party audits ] says " Second party audits are external audits. They’re usually
done by customers or by others on their behalf. However,
they can also be done by regulators or any other external
party that has a formal interest in an organization."

Sounds to me more like somebody's just trying to convince busy people with money that they can buy a service instead of doing it themselves. Not much new about that model.

"reliable, confidence-delivering 3rd party certification process" - Third party certifications are like drivers licenses. You can study the book, pass the written and driving exams, and that's all good.

You can still be a dangerous driver. Think of second party audits as getting in the car with your supplier and spending some time driving around with them, seeing how they do.

normzone said:

Third party certifications are like drivers licenses. You can study the book, pass the written and driving exams, and that's all good.

You can still be a dangerous driver. Think of second party audits as getting in the car with your supplier and spending some time driving around with them, seeing how they do.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I heard that analogy as well, but I don't think it is appropriate. According to the ISO/IAF declaration,

ISO/IAF expected outcomes said:

an organization with a certified quality management system consistently provides products that meet customer and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, and aims to enhance customer satisfaction

Click to expand...

So, an ISO 9001 certificate should be associated with GOOD supplier performance.

If we remember that the concept of 3rd party ISO 9001 certification was developed EXACTLY to reduce the need for 2nd party audits, I find disturbing, albeit ironic, that registrars now want to profiteer from something they were created to reduce.

I think that example may fall under a common phenomena I refer to as

"unrealistic expectations of process capability".

Duh, no big deal, it's just another area to generate revenue. There are some CB's that do 1st party audits, I know because I've audited internal audits performed by other CB's during the course of audits I've done on a 3rd party certification basis.

There's no conspiracy, it's called capitalism and business.

Reg Morrison said:

Thanks. I heard that analogy as well, but I don't think it is appropriate. According to the ISO/IAF declaration, So, an ISO 9001 certificate should be associated with GOOD supplier performance.

If we remember that the concept of 3rd party ISO 9001 certification was developed EXACTLY to reduce the need for 2nd party audits, I find disturbing, albeit ironic, that registrars now want to profiteer from something they were created to reduce.

Click to expand...

But Reg...there has to be a DEMAND for it, from customers, doesn't there? If customers weren't prepared to pay for it, CBs wouldn't do it because there'd be no revenue...

Why not ask the clients why they aren't demanding more from the third party process? If they contract with exactly those organizations who have "failed", your argument doesn't hold water, does it?

Just because registrars are OFFERING the service, it does not mean that people are buying it. Actually, it just shows how struggling the registrar market is, as they attempt to diversify their offering.

I repeat: if the 3rd party certification process was delivering what the expected outcomes are, the demand for certification would be increasing dramatically. After all, confidence in the supply chain is extremely important. And, with certification, the supplier bears the cost of the audit, while second party audits are funded with customer money. So, if customers had confidence in certification, as a measure of supplier performance, they would be demanding more of it.

Because of the "stuff" that the AB's are demanding of CB's the revenue generated from 1st & 2nd party work has less hassle and Horse^hit tied to it.

For the internal audits (on a 3rd party basis) that I personally perform, I'm getting almost the same day rate as a CB does for 3rd party audit delivery with none of the **** to deal with.

Reg Morrison said:

Just because registrars are OFFERING the service, it does not mean that people are buying it. Actually, it just shows how struggling the registrar market is, as they attempt to diversify their offering.

I repeat: if the 3rd party certification process was delivering what the expected outcomes are, the demand for certification would be increasing dramatically. After all, confidence in the supply chain is extremely important. And, with certification, the supplier bears the cost of the audit, while second party audits are funded with customer money. So, if customers had confidence in certification, as a measure of supplier performance, they would be demanding more of it.

Click to expand...

It depends on your "vision" of what certification is supposed to achieve. It only represents basic "blocking and tackling" - it never precluded a customer from doing their own audits or supplier development. In your condemnation of the state of certification you may overlook that some CBs are doing very nicely thank you very much, without resorting to 2nd party audits. Please be very careful with the brush and tar pot, Reg...

AndyN said:

It depends on your "vision" of what certification is supposed to achieve. It only represents basic "blocking and tackling"

Click to expand...

My vision for what certification is supposed to achieve is not as important as the declared ISO/IAF vision, which I have already posted in a previous post in this thread.

an organization with a certified quality management system consistently provides products that meet customer and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, and aims to enhance customer satisfaction

Click to expand...

If you also subscribe to the analogy that an ISO 9001 certificate is like a driver's license, i.e., the license does not tell if the driver is good or bad, you should be prepared to charge as much as the Department of Motor Vehicles charge for the driver's test and licensing.

AndyN said:

you may overlook that some CBs are doing very nicely thank you very much, without resorting to 2nd party audits.

Click to expand...

Do you mean to say that registrars that don't offer 2nd party audits are the ones that are doing well?