Opinions re New RABQSA QMS Auditor Certification Criteria - Competency

[Kevin H]

I just checked out the new RABQSA criteria for Competency-based QMS auditor certification. I've done a quick read-through, and so far the impression I have is that it's very complicated, it's designed to generate additional training opportunities for RABQSA, and that it's significantly more expensive than the system as operated under RAB prior to the merger.

Anybody else have any opinions os far?

I've been slowly working towards registration as an ISO 9001:2000 lead auditor, by taking the ASQ CQA test and then the 16 hr lead auditor training from RAB while working as a quality engineer in a Tier 2 automotive supplier located in Pennsylvania. Right now, I'm split between continuing to pursue that certification through RABQSA or choosing to try to achieve that goal through IRCA, whose current requirements appear to be both less expensive and more based in the real world. Does anyone on the Cove have experience as to whether there is a bias against IRCA registered auditors within the United States?

[Randy]

Here's the perception that I've developed over the last few years....nobody really gives a rip.

It is the opinion of some of the folks that are in my more frequent "circles" that the IRCA ticket carries with it a taste that is more palatable and valid because of the real world approach taken.

Personally, I have been seriously considering changing my present ticket to IRCA and going after IRCA's OHSAS certification as well.

[Sidney Vianna]

I am with Randy. IRCA, RABQSA, IATCA are just confusing acronyms for the non-initiated. Nobody pays attention to auditor credentials... And like Randy already stated several times in this forum: Contrary to what many people believe, auditors representing accredited registrars do not have to have such credentials, in order to perform their duties.

Some registrars insist that their auditors attain and maintain such credentials, but, technically, it is not a requirement of ISO Guides 62, 66 nor ISO 19011.

Personally, I am for changes in the way that management system auditors are tested in order to demonstrate their competence, but I guess only time will tell if this new route delivers significantly better results.

The archaic methodology we have been using so far to "train and test" lead auditor candidates begs to be revamped. So, who knows, this system that RABQSA is introducing might yield better auditors

[Kevin H]

Randy & Sidney - I appreciate the information in your replies.
Part of my concerns regarding RABQSA's new approach is the partial reliance on a psychological profile generated through an on-line test. I believe I'd pass it, but consider the accuracy/repeatibility of such tools to be questionable and intrusive. I've also seen too many times over the years where companies relied on similar tools, and have been burned by new employees who passed them with flying colors and turned out to be extremely poor choices.

I've got to believe that auditing itself would tend to weed out the poorer performers. If I truly felt the new approach would significantly increase the expertise of auditors, I'd probably support it. The impression I have so far is that it's more bureaucracy without added value - the antithesis of lean. Should be an interesting thread - I hope to see some more responses.

[Sidney Vianna]

Kevin, last week I had a chance to attend a presentation by a representative of the RABQSA. As part of the process to make auditor approval a competence-based program, versus the present qualification-based program, the RABQSA will institute a witness audit step in auditor approval. The difference, if I understood the new process correctly, is that the witnessing agent will have to be designated by the RABQSA and the fees for the witness audit have been set @ US$400. Remember, this is on top of the training and the on-line psychometric testing.
I wonder if they will succeed in selling this new competency-based program. The conundrum is that with the enforcement of ISO/IEC 17024, only competency-based personnel certification programs can be accredited.
Like I said before. What a tangled web we weave.......

[Randy]

Part of the problem is defining "competence", which the RABQSA hasn't. Defining competence is like defining beauty when dealing with an abstract like auditing.

The RABQSA is offering an alternative which is the "non-accredited" certification scheme.

I received an offer from the RABQSA, as did many other Lead Auditors, to be one of the "competency assessors" but I declined due to potential COI with my employer.

[phxsun2001]

This new RABQSA Audit certification is going to help a lot of auditors like me working as internal auditor and don't have external auditing experience. I tried for years offering free audits to companies to satisfy the RAB requirement. I was thinking about quiting an excellent job and work as a supplier QA engineer just to get my RAB Auditor certification. Now looks like I don't have to.

That's just my way of looking at this new certification process. We don't have to show external auditing experience. I am waiting for a call from RABQSA to confirm it. I like to get some comment from others. Thanks.

[Kevin H]

Sidney & Randy, again thanks for the continued input. My initial post was prompted by acquiring the new requirements and reviewing them - seeing the introduction of the psychometric testing, plus the added cost and complexity of having a witness audit of the applying auditor. At age 50+, I'm skeptical of the value added by making systems more complex. I've experienced auditors from 2 different registrars plus A2LA, over 3 different companies, and a time span of 17 years. Over all that time, many had some idiosyncrasies but most did not let them affect their auditing. In fact, I can think of only 1 who did, and we "fired" him after our initial registration audit to ISO 9001:2000 & QS-9000.