Choosing a Registrar - Registrars That "Do It All"

[Sam]

"Sam,

Any registrar that calls potential clients and informs them that if they buy a "package deal" of consulting and assessment services, then they are guaranteed to pass their certification audit is going to viewed as less than ethical. And PJR is guilty of this."

Are you sure that PJR is the only registrar or CB that uses this approach?

"As long as you're happy with their services, then your only potential loss is through "guilt by association". It is possible that the validity of your certification could be questioned because of the reputation of the registrar."

With price being the #1 motivator, who would question the validity of a cert.

"I'm not questioning it, just pointing out that people who are aware of PJR's rep and who have an interest in your certification status might harbor suspicions. If this isn't a concern, then no harm no foul."

No concern. PJR has the accreditations necessary to do the job they are required to do.

Apparently there is some confusion as to the role a registrar or CB plays in the registration process.
Initially the reccommendation for registration is made soley by the lead auditor. This reccommendation is made to the registrar who in turn notifys the client. If the client is dissatisfied he can request a meeting with the registrar/CB and LA. Now if the registrar/CB trys to coerce the LA to revise there report, then yes I would say there is reason for concern.
Personnally I've never heard of this situation happening.

[Sidney Vianna]

Mike, let me preamble my comments, stating that I am speaking about the process and NOT any specific Registrar or organization. I do not have ANY objective evidence of malpractice, by any Registrar. If I did, I would bring it to the appropriate Accreditation Agencies. Having said that, any certification body that infers "guaranteed" results by using a specific consultant, including a related body is in CLEAR VIOLATION of ISO Guide 62, the basis for IAF-signatories accreditation. See below for the IAF Guidance on ISO Guide 62

" . . .G.2.1.25. Activities under clause 2.1.2.o) of ISO/IEC Guide 62 by a related body and certification / registration should never be marketed together and nothing should be stated in marketing material or presentation, written or oral, to give the impression that the two activities are linked. It is the duty of the certification / registration body to ensure that none of its clients is given the impression that the use of such activities and certification / registration would bring any business advantage to the client so that the certification / registration remains, and is seen to remain, impartial.

G.2.1.26. Nothing should be said by a certification / registration body that would suggest that certification / registration would be simpler, easier or less expensive if any specified consultancy or training services were used. . . ."

The rules are clear. What is not clear is why, after so many rumours and hearsay, no Registrar has ever been dis-accredited? The accreditation bodies continuously state that they are not provided with tangible, irrefutable evidence of wrong doing that they can use. But, if there is so much smoke and we can't find the fire, shouldn't we change our detection system?

Sidney Vianna said:

Mike, let me preamble my comments, stating that I am speaking about the process and NOT any specific Registrar or organization. I do not have ANY objective evidence of malpractice, by any Registrar. If I did, I would bring it to the appropriate Accreditation Agencies. Having said that, any certification body that infers "guaranteed" results by using a specific consultant, including a related body is in CLEAR VIOLATION of ISO Guide 62, the basis for IAF-signatories accreditation. See below for the IAF Guidance on ISO Guide 62

" . . .G.2.1.25. Activities under clause 2.1.2.o) of ISO/IEC Guide 62 by a related body and certification / registration should never be marketed together and nothing should be stated in marketing material or presentation, written or oral, to give the impression that the two activities are linked. It is the duty of the certification / registration body to ensure that none of its clients is given the impression that the use of such activities and certification / registration would bring any business advantage to the client so that the certification / registration remains, and is seen to remain, impartial.

G.2.1.26. Nothing should be said by a certification / registration body that would suggest that certification / registration would be simpler, easier or less expensive if any specified consultancy or training services were used. . . ."

The rules are clear. What is not clear is why, after so many rumours and hearsay, no Registrar has ever been dis-accredited? The accreditation bodies continuously state that they are not provided with tangible, irrefutable evidence of wrong doing that they can use. But, if there is so much smoke and we can't find the fire, shouldn't we change our detection system?

Great stuff Sidney. Are you a lawyer? Mike, I have to call this a TKO. And PJ is not the only one who does this.

[Mike S.]

Energy,

Being as dense as I am, I'm not 100% sure what you mean. Do you mean it is a TKO of PJ, guilty as charged?

Again, I've got no horse in this race, but I just wonder why, if the rules are so clear, and PJ's violation is so clear (to some) why, in this litigous society we're in today, hasn't even ONE of the many jealous competitors (who would stand to gain business) or any disgruntled employee or customer managed to prove ANY wrongdoing by PJ? So much smoke and no fire, indeed. I just don't get it (again).

[John Swartz]

I don't know if this is the right forum to mention this so I'll just go ahead with it.

We have been registered to ISO/QS-TE since October 2000. The QMS is audited semi-annually. So far I have had 4 different auditors performing the audits.

The first five audits went as expected, a couple of minors each time.

The closing meeting for the most recent audit was last night. It was a 'witness audit' - RAB auditor auditing the auditor. We came away with 2 majors and 12 minors. I am still shaking in the aftermath.

From all appearances, it was a witch hunt. The registrar in question has been discussed previously (I don't want to be held libel - seriously, I don't).

Some of the minors were legit, a contract review was not completed satisfactorily, and a piece of material in the shop wasn't tagged adequately. But both majors were written on 4.1 and 4.2!!! Complete breakdown of the system!

I am just beside myself right now...chuck the whole ISO/QS system...turn in my stack of NCRs...head into the mountains and become the 21st century version of Jeremiah Johnson.

Fortunately, my company is standing beside me, very supportive people. When my BP drops below 200/150 I'll begin drafting a customer satisfaction survey to our registrar and cc: RAB

-------

Creme de la creme....guess who just called offering consultation services? And it's not even 9:00 in the morning here!

What a racket these guys are in...self-perpetuating business...they're paid to create the problems and paid to fix the problems they have created.

-------

I could sure use some words of encouragement, positive strokes, slap in the face, a bucket of cold water reality, anything that will get me out this funk.

Thanks for your ear.

I would relaly like to know what recourse I may have...can these NCRs be challenged? Appealed?

Would a letter to the RAB/IAOB/IRCA etc. be of any good?

Thanks again.

[John Swartz]

I think it was just a coincidence...I hope it was coincidence...

I can't believe a registrar/consultant would be obvious. Or am I being naive?

PS: I'm looking for a new registrar as of this morning....any suggestions (QS/TE)?

Mike S. said:

Energy,

Being as dense as I am, I'm not 100% sure what you mean. Do you mean it is a TKO of PJ, guilty as charged?

Again, I've got no horse in this race, but I just wonder why, if the rules are so clear, and PJ's violation is so clear (to some) why, in this litigous society we're in today, hasn't even ONE of the many jealous competitors (who would stand to gain business) or any disgruntled employee or customer managed to prove ANY wrongdoing by PJ? So much smoke and no fire, indeed. I just don't get it (again).

My reference to a TKO is the showing of specific rules of engagement that registrars "shall" follow. Any defense of a Registrar who openly markets these services is "moot". I know of at least two more well known names out there who advertise similar deals. Disgruntled, employees? Jealous competitors? You don't need them. Just read the "published" advertising materials and it's easy to see any violation. Why haven't these guys been sued? I don't know. Maybe it's a "not deep enough pockets" thing for a potential plaintiff.
Maybe, the rules should be changed because a lot of Companies like the idea of getting a bigger bang for their buck and keep these guys in business.
Personally, I have no objection to it at all.
But, like a boxing match, there are rules. While I might want the boxers to kick each other in the ba**s, it is not allowed. TKO for Sidney

[Mike S.]

Okay, Energy, I'll let you play referee on this one, and since it is ruled a TKO the judges are useless (smart move). Ya'll may be right that PJ is violating the rules, but for the life of me I still cannot understand why someone or ISO doesn't punish them if all of the da*ning evidence is so blatantly obvious in published materials. Didn't ISO just recently ask for just such evidence? Deep pockets or not, too many other registrars have too much to gain not to raise **** and/or sue to discredit the wrongdoers. And it seems to me ISO could get some easy points by flexing their muscles and winning an easy one. It just doesn't make any sense to me. But, I'm dense.