Choosing a Registrar - Registrars That "Do It All"

Is it a good idea to pay a company to do "everything" for you? I've heard of seemingly reputable registrars that will write all of your procedures, quality manual, audit you, train you, and certify you all for a nice sum. Is this the way to go or are there better alternatives to getting certified.

While am at it, I might as well ask. Is ISO a good choice to improve quality? There are many choices, and many ways of doing so. Is ISO worth all the trouble?

Thanks,
Julian

[JodiB]

One word=no.

More words= back away slowly

They are not "reputable"!! I know exactly who you are talking about and everyone in the industry does too! You should keep clear. Their rep is bad to the bone.

In the three courses I took for the ISO 9K2K, there were about 8 people who had used this registrar and every single one was extremely dissatified and had changed registrars. Every one. There was another person who said that they were approached by this registrar but they would never have anything to do with a "snake oil merchant".

If you are required to use internal auditors who are independent (or to use the current language= impartial), then does this smell right to you? Yeah, I thought not.

You knew the answer to this one already, I'm sure.

[gpainter]

Stay away from those people. They just want drain your pocket book. I believe that registrars should registrar, even if they say that this is a different division.
ISO is a start but management is the driver, if they want a certificate on the wall that is what they will get. If they want to use it as a starting point to improve, then the sky is the limit. Is it worth the trouble? Refer to the above, if for the cert., NO. If for starting point, YES. This should be an interesting thread.

Lucinda wrote
<I took for the ISO 9K2K, there were about 8 people who had used this registrar and every single one was extremely dissatified and had changed registrars>

My experience thus far is that there is more than "one" of these types of companies. Actually thet seem to be quite a popular and all over the place. What troubles me is that these companies have a client base of thousands of companies. How could it be that so many have fallen for such a trap! Maybe I'm missing something.

Thanks All,
Julian

To ISO or not to ISO? That is my question...

[JodiB]

Julian,

There is only one registrar "with a name" that I know of who does this. There are training departments within the registrars that offer training courses, but they do not consult or write procedures. The one I'm talking about "guarantees" successful certfication by using their consulting division to put your system together. As far as I know (and I've been out of the game for a year now), any other registrar would essentially be a small time consulting "company" who has RAB accreditation to certify also.

Conflict of interest is one that the accreditation bodies do not take lightly. When we had our accreditation surveillances, they were always making sure that even our training courses were advertised to the public (as opposed to specially scheduled for only one company) and that they were held offsite a client's property (or that if it was onsite, that the sponsoring company would allow the public into their facility to take the course also). While there were some registrars were not as particular about this as we were, it is still not something that would be done without careful .

The RAB is not as strict as the other accreditation bodies, which is what has allowed this unsavory consulting/certification practice to be openly offerred.

As far as to ISO or not to ISO.... I say ISO. Gives you everything you need as far as structure for your QMS. Then you can employ some of the other methodologies for futher improvement.

[Sidney Vianna]

Lucinda, you seem to think that accreditation to UKAS would prevent Registrars from mis-behaving.

Well, this unethical Registrar/Consulting Agency alledgedly being indirectly mentioned on this thread, has UKAS accreditation for both EMS and QMS certifications, according to their website.

So how come, according to your line of thought, UKAS does not crack the whip and pulls their accreditation? I think your perception of UKAS's policing effort is seriously outdated.

Until there is transparency in this WHOLE process and until Accreditation Agencies are accountable to the Industry they are supposed to serve, abuses, frauds, scams will exist.

Meaning no offense, but when someone asks if it is ok to pay the same organization to "DO everything", i.e., write documents, train people, audit and issue certificates, we have a typical example of ISO-ignorance that is being preyed upon

[JodiB]

Lucinda, you seem to think that accreditation to UKAS would prevent Registrars from mis-behaving.

Nope, only that RAB doesn't. They have a bigger door than US Immigrations. Additional scrutiny increases conformance whether it's Jaz-Anz or SCC or JAB or RvA or InMetro, etc. Come on Sidney, you're in the game. You know this. They each have their peculiarities and the registrars conform.

So how come, according to your line of thought, UKAS does not crack the whip and pulls their accreditation? I think your perception of UKAS's policing effort is seriously outdated.

Excellent question. Why haven't they? My perception may be outdated, that's true. If they aren't regulating like they should be, then that's a real shame. At least I don't have first-hand knowledge of it so I am blissfully ignorant at the moment.
(oh man, why do I feel like I've just opened Pandora's Box?....)

[MD]

Could you be more specific?
Which registrar and where? And what exactly was their proposal?

(As for my attitude for such things - they must be PUNISHED)