I have reciently moved to a new company which has a supplier base of approx 100 suppliers. We have identified a need to carryout supplier assessments by on site audits to iso9000. After an initial two audits we have found that these suppliers have informed us of there registration to iso9000 and supplied a certificate which upon closer inspection has not be certified by a UKAS accreditation body. The two audits have uncovered the fact that the quality systems which they currently operate to have elements of the standard completely missing which are relavent to there business ie internal audits and contract review. Surely these companys cannot call themselves an ISO registred supplier if there system is in such a shocking state.Any advice or similar encounters would be appreciated.
1. Who are the registrars involved?
2. How does the Scope of Registration read on their certs?
3. Are the registrars 'accredited' by any accreditation body?
Yes - sounds problematic. I have never seen a company get 'relief' from compliance with internal audits or contract review for any reason.
have seen consultants 'certify' companies to a standard.....they merely do an audit to the standard and give a certificate...of course its not accredited by anyone...they just make it look nice. Haven't seen it for quite some time though..too many people got wise...but it is a dangerous thing. Sometimes a company is purely innocent and gets taken with the consultants fraud....sometimes they know full well what they are doing. Used to see often in small start ups, back in 94-96.
Always ask for a copy of the certificate...and scrutinize it carefully. Verify with the registrar's client listings.
Some of the stuff you see out there in the real world is ethically horrifying...
[This message has been edited by barb butrym (edited 21 March 2000).]
The registras I don't think would appreciate there names being mentioned and I don't think it is relavent. The fact that they have issued a certificate to the companys with ISO9000 written all over it is the worrying thing. It may be down to pure ignorance on the clients part but you would think that the consultants would brief the clients on the fact that the registration issued is not certified by UKAS. I am sure that there must be a register of all the certified consultants in the country,
The registras I don't think would appreciate there names being mentioned and I don't think it is relavent.
It is relevant to many people trying to choose a registrar. I look at it this way - as long as FACTS are stated a registrar has no gripe. I am sure a registrar with problems would not 'appreciate' being named. From my point of view that is all the more reason to identify problematic registrars.
One point here - are the registrars in question 'certified' by any organization? For example I know of registrars 'certified' by the RAB that are not 'certified' by the RvA or any other body - which for most companies is fine and dandy.
As an example, DNV is 'certified' by all of the following:
Belgium (BELCERT)
France
Italy (SINCERT)
The Netherlands (RvA)
Australia & New Zealand (JASANZ)
Norway (NA)
Germany (DAU)
Austria (BMwA)
Switzerland (Swiss Certification)
China - Hong Kong (HKCAS)
Finland (FINAS)
South Korea (KAC)
Sweden (SWEDAC)
Brazil (INMETRO)
UK (UKAS)
Japan (JAB)
Spain (ENAC)
USA (RAB)
Denmark (DANAK)
Most registrars are only certified by 1 or 2 countries (RvA is more common, for example, than UKAS).
UN-CERTIFIED QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Linear Mode
