Is the competence of third party auditors improving?

[Randy]

To make matters even sadder, Colin: you work in a very "mature" market. The one where this whole process of management system certification got started 3 decades ago.

Yep, maybe it's time for a bit of a Revolution again

If it is this bad over there, imagine how many organizations are being preyed upon in emerging markets such as Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

You can see that by some of what we get here.

No wonder the John Seddons and Jim Wades have followers

...

Sidney, what you said!:mg: Shame

 

[Howard Atkins]

To make matters even sadder, Colin: you work in a very "mature" market. The one where this whole process of management system certification got started 3 decades ago. If it is this bad over there, imagine how many organizations are being preyed upon in emerging markets such as Asia, the Middle East and Africa.
No wonder the John Seddons and Jim Wades have followers...

Sidney-This is to some extent chicken and egg.

I performed some 24 audits in India last year (in multinational companies) and found the staff knowledgeable in the subject matter but they have been constantly been told by auditors that they must do things in certain ways and this has made them very conformance based. This is not the only problem in India but this is the basic one where auditors are expecting a mirror image of "their system".

This is especially seen in the area of not opening your mind.
Example of this is from an EHS (ISO 14001/OHSAS 18001) audit.
The ambient air by the chimney stack is defined as is the air at the gate but not inside the working area. There are areas where in terms of risks there is recognized a need for masks due to chemicals but this risk is limited to the specific station and no one thought about the effect on the neighboring worker. I brought this up after I exited the workshop reeking of chemicals. We had a big discussion as to this as there was no requirement under the pollution controls to measure inside a confined area. In the end they tested ambient levels in the plant and saw that they were within the limits but certain areas were near the limit.
There were checks of illumination levels every 3 months but the low levels continued and no corrective actions were taken. The checks were what the auditor wanted to see!

Previous auditors did not look at the system but rather the minimum to put a tick on the checklist.

This also causes the consultants to work in the manner that will be beneficial to their customers, a certificate in the quickest manner rather than actually produce a meaningful product.

The main reason I stopped being a consultant was because the auditors (in the Middle East) were insisting that every clause appeared with its number appeared in the QM!! These are working as partners with a large European CB.

The biggest problem is the legacy of the auditor.

The previous auditor said do it like this, how do I disagree? I do and explain that there is no "correct" way.


I tell my customers that there is only one source and I show them what the standard says- mainly so that when I am rotated out they will understand what is really required.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The biggest problem is the legacy of the auditor.

Howard, in my mind, I have delved into this whole problem with 5-why's, 10-why's, etc...

The root cause of this whole problem, together with the declining confidence in the typical certification process is lack of accountability, primarily by the users of the certificates.

If the users of the certificates were to keep their certified suppliers AND the supplier's certification bodies ACCOUNTABLE to minimum levels of performance, this whole process would change because, when confronted with the choices of losing their accreditation or getting rid of moronic auditors, CB's would be forced to choose the first option.
Until CB's are FORCED to understand that their product should be confidence to stakeholders and NOT certificates, many will keep on being the certificate-mill approach to "conformity assessment", damaging the whole concept and bringing the whole industry into disrepute.

For some of the industry sector schemes, such as the Automotive IATF and the A,S&D ICOP Schemes, where heightened oversight of CB's is exercised, we see some positive signs of stakeholder confidence.

 

[Jason PCSwitches]

Howard, in my mind, I have delved into this whole problem with 5-why's, 10-why's, etc...

The root cause of this whole problem, together with the declining confidence in the typical certification process is lack of accountability, primarily by the users of the certificates.

If the users of the certificates were to keep their certified suppliers AND the supplier's certification bodies ACCOUNTABLE to minimum levels of performance, this whole process would change because, when confronted with the choices of losing their accreditation or getting rid of moronic auditors, CB's would be forced to choose the first option.
Until CB's are FORCED to understand that their product should be confidence to stakeholders and NOT certificates, many will keep on being the certificate-mill approach to "conformity assessment", damaging the whole concept and bringing the whole industry into disrepute.

For some of the industry sector schemes, such as the Automotive IATF and the A,S&D ICOP Schemes, where heightened oversight of CB's is exercised, we see some positive signs of stakeholder confidence.

I agree that if every organization implemented & maintained the true "intention" of the particular standard adopted & associated with the related business aspect of that organization improvement would be universally measurable.

Unfortunately most organizations only have certification because they are required to by the big boys they want to do business with; understandable.

It's a hell of a lot easier to establish standardization in big business then in small business (dichotomy); which makes up most of the market. Try to change the culture of an organization with 100 or less employees that has been in business for 40 years, successfully, you know how that story goes. This is what I feel needs to be considered during committee meetings. Let's be honest, if QA standards were not mandatory, most organizations would not implement them. Sad but true. Let's also not forget that the standardizations industry itself is a Billion dollar business

We must keep in mind that standardization is fairly young when compared to the age of industry. Don't get me wrong, I do this for a living so I'm a fan. However the reality is if the people who are lucky enough to sit in on these standardization committees start to take into account others besides the "quarterbacks" - meaning the large influential companies - progression may be more persistent. Though they (Big Boys) should have a major role, there is a great deal that can be learned from "Little Joes' Molding Shop". It's easy to delegate from the sidelines; those involved must have, and continue to have their feet wet in the respected industry beyond just a desk.

Remember our root's. Progress is usually initiated from the least expected place. The moment you go deaf in business, you die.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

It is however, a little annoying when you pay over 1K GBP to a CB for an OHSAS18001 one day assessment and the auditor arrives 1 hour late, makes and receives at least 5 phone calls regarding her current house move then leaves an hour early and did not conduct a very goodaudit IMHO.

I am sure your CB has blurbs on their website on how professional their people is and how committed they are to your satisfaction.
You must decide if you are going to keep them accountable to the promises or not.

 

[Colin]

To make matters even sadder, Colin: you work in a very "mature" market. The one where this whole process of management system certification got started 3 decades ago. If it is this bad over there, imagine how many organizations are being preyed upon in emerging markets such as Asia, the Middle East and Africa.
No wonder the John Seddons and Jim Wades have followers...

Very true Sidney - perhaps that is why it is more frustrating in some ways, we should know better.

The reality is that most of these systems I see do actually provide some benefit to the organisations (who tend to be quite small generally - under 25 employees is normal) and if only they would put another 10 - 15% of effort in they would get a lot more out of it.

The other dilemma is that the consultant wants to keep a maintenance contract with the company to keep coming back for a couple of days/year to do the internal audits and management review so they have a vested interest in not fully handing over the reins to the client - and of course the client remains at 'arms length' to the system.

Just yesterday whilst conducting a stage 2 audit, I found myself having to explain what management review was for! They had attended one chaired by the consultant but didn't understand what it was supposed to achieve - funny thing is, they quite liked the idea and asked if it was OK to do another in a few months time!

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The IAF, under pressure of many stakeholders has been trying to improve the competence requirements of auditors and other CB personnel involved with the certification process.

ISO 17021:2006 and 2011 brought significant enhanced requirements associated with competence. But because ISO 17021 is a generic standard, which encompasses certification of multiple disciplines, ISO/CASCO is working on several 17021 "plug-ins" for different disciplines.

Not too long ago I started a thread communicating the release of ISO 17021-2: EMS auditor competence ISO Standard published - ISO/IEC TS 17021-2:2012

In the beginning of May, ISO released ISO/IEC TS 17021-3:2013: Conformity assessment ? Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems, Part 3: Competence requirements for auditing and certification of quality management systems

ISO/CASCO is pleased to announce the publication of ISO/IEC TS 17021: Conformity assessment ? Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems, Part 3: Competence requirements for auditing and certification of quality management systems. This Technical Specification (TS) complements ISO/IEC 17021 and clarifies the requirements for the competence of personnel involved in the auditing and certification of quality management systems (QMSs).

ANAB's Heads Up # 258 deals with the transition to 17021-2

 

[Reg Morrison]

The ISO Management Systems Magazine from Jan./Feb. 2006 has a very interesting article titled "Pay attention to the needs of audit clients", where Mr. Fraser Paterson describes some of the fundamental challenges of the system certification sector. Almost 7 years later, it does not look like things have improved much, despite the rhetoric that some registrar sales reps like to spin.

The question is: how much longer until the average caliber of auditors is so low that even companies who require their suppliers to be certified stop doing so?

The tactic of fire-your-auditor/registrar and get a new one only works if registrants really have a choice....

 

[Helmut Jilling]

May I ask what you are basing that observation on? Especially if you are retired? As a long-time auditor, and consultant, it is my opinion that most auditors I know and interact with have become quite competent. Certainly not all, but many of the war stories of old are significantly reduced.

 

[AndyN]

The ISO Management Systems Magazine from Jan./Feb. 2006 has a very interesting article titled "Pay attention to the needs of audit clients", where Mr. Fraser Paterson describes some of the fundamental challenges of the system certification sector. Almost 7 years later, it does not look like things have improved much, despite the rhetoric that some registrar sales reps like to spin.

The question is: how much longer until the average caliber of auditors is so low that even companies who require their suppliers to be certified stop doing so?

The tactic of fire-your-auditor/registrar and get a new one only works if registrants really have a choice....

Indeed, some CB auditors won't have improved, since some CBs hire their auditors from a list. You are also overlooking the fact that the training for "Lead Auditors" hasn't changed in any significant manner in over 25 years, so why not highlight that as well? And, yes, you should be careful about what "some" CB sales reps spin...