Should consultants be accredited or hold ISO9001 certification themselves?

[Denis9001]

The consultant has a great deal of influence on a quality system. Many companies spend a great deal of money using consultants for the sole purpose of helping them get ISO9001 certification. But how can a company have confidence that the consultant himself is competent. A lot may be riding on his abilities.

To my knowledge, there is no accreditation scheme for quality system consultants like there is for registrars. Should there be?

Many consultants are themselves not ISO9001 certified or even subject to external audits. Should they be?

For other professionals who advise like doctors, lawyers, teachers, architects etc. there is some form of registration/certification to evidence competence. The company looks on the consultant as an expert and invariably heeds his advice on conformity/certification matters. But is he really an expert and is the company getting good advice?

It would be interesting, were it possible, to analyze NCRs companies get from registrar auditors and ask the question "howcome the consultant or internal audit didn't spot that". Were the auditors nitpicking or was the consultant at fault.

What you think?

[Wes Bucey]

See my answer to your other post on a similar topic at http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread....astpost&t=8785

The essence is not so much on whether the consultant is competent, but on the system that rewards "passing" a registration audit more than the delivery of good products and services.

On more than one occasion in the past few years, I've heard of customers who arbitrarily "fire" suppliers who fail a registration audit after having bought satisfactory goods from those same suppliers for years before the "policy change" to require registration to a Standard.

Firing the supplier may be "defensible" on the part of the customer, but it sure seems skewed toward the ridiculous in my view.

Should they be registered? If their clients require it, yes. Otherwise, it's a choice like anything else. And there is little-to-no correlation between ISO certification and product quality, so I doubt it would add much value, especially when offset by the increase in consulting fees that would occur because of the additional costs.

Any sort of certification/accreditation/licensing does little more than establish a baseline at which or above which the particular profession should operate. Each individual/organization then pursues the level of excellence (or debauchery) that fits to their personal values and/or capabilities. Think of the airline crashes caused by licensed pilots, the medical errors made by licensed physicians, ...

Regulations are like speed limits, and each individual/organization will choose whether or not it is going to add value to the particular situation. It is up to customers to be sufficiently intelligent and informed so as to make wise choices in their purchases.

[Randy]

If the consultant is a supplier then the organization can require him/her to meet the rquirements of 9001.

If the consultant can effect customer satisfaction and quality then the same controls apply as with anything else (to include competency).

Also the RABQSA has a scheme for consultants.

[Hershal]

Let me throw some gas onto the fire.....

One hires a consultant (allegedly) because the consultant knows what s/he is doing, known in the accreditation world as "competency."

So if the consultants should be required to become registered or even accredited, the first and most obvious questions are:

1. registration so they have a good QMS; or accreditation so they have to actually DEMONSTRATE they know what they are doing?

2. then, under which standard? If registration, then 9K should be appropriate, but if accreditation.....get's a bit trickier.

Hershal

[Denis9001]

Wes,

Agreed the ultimate aim is a good QMS, product confomity and customer satisfaction. The consultant is a human resource input and therefore a critical factor just like others.

I think Randy got it right in that the consultant is a supplier and should be subject to supplier evaluation controls. Just seems strange to me that companies would have criteria for product and service suppliers but the consultant is rarely subject to the controls he helped implement. I've yet to see the supplier evaluation/approval records for the consultant.

the post from dokes pointed out "if the client requires it". Very true but that only shifts the question elsewhere into customer focus and requirements. Do we think that a company seeking certification would want their adviser to be certified.

[Randy]

Originally Posted by Hershal

Let me throw some gas onto the fire.....

One hires a consultant (allegedly) because the consultant knows what s/he is doing, known in the accreditation world as "competency."

Hershal

The only definition for competency you'll find related to 9K is actually in 19011 and is applied for auditors.

3.14
competence
demonstrated personal attributes and demonstrated ability to apply knowledge and skills

The RABQSA is currently developing an a certification scheme for "Management Consultants" (heavy on the scheme ).

Of course the RABQSA 1st have to define what competence is themselves

[Aaron Lupo]

[QUOTE=Denis9001]Wes,
I think Randy got it right in that the consultant is a supplier and should be subject to supplier evaluation controls. Just seems strange to me that companies would have criteria for product and service suppliers but the consultant is rarely subject to the controls he helped implement. I've yet to see the supplier evaluation/approval records for the consultant.
QUOTE]

I know the company I used to work for qualified our consultants in the same manor as we did for suppliers we purchased products from. We had a formalized procedure we were required to follow for any supplier wheter it be service or product.

I have also made sure that when I do registration/surveillance audits that if they use a consultant, that they put them thru the same paces as the rest of the suppliers they use. For that matter I also make sure they followed the same process in qualifying the CB they decided to use.