As if this is breaking news....
Excuse my humour.... Yes - I know I'm a sick puppy! From the qs9000 list serve:
----------snippo----------
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 13:22:29 -0500
From: DDILINK
Subject: ISO Conflict of Interest
A colleague sent this to me. Anyone have any further information? Thanks
Vince:
My partner just returned from Geneva and reports an interesting development within ISO. Seems that the close relationship between consultants and ISO certifiers is creating ethics problems.
NOTE: Gasp!
What seems to be happening in the US is that consultants are in a position to choose certifying agents and direct fees to them from a client company seeking ISO certification.
NOTE: Personally, I urge my clients to choose from several, and in fact I provide a 'rating sheet'. I tell them to choose and interview 3 to 5 firms. They usually interview 2 or 3 and get paper from a couple of others. Mebbe some of us have 'ethics'....
That company can pay anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000 for a three year agreement with an ISO-approved registrar. Consultant's fees are additional and $100,000,000 to 150,000 for a small to medium size company is the norm.
This sets the stage for a quid pro quo. The consultant says to the certifying agent, "I'll throw business your way as long as you continue to certify my projects."
NOTE: Nawwwww. Consultants wouldn't do that! Actually we consultants tell registrars, "...send business my way and I'll recommend you as well!..."
The consultant benefits because he can be confident of delivering a certification at the conclusion of a project.
NOTE: Personally, I want CASH MONEY in addition to a successful registration audit!!!
The certifying agent benefits from the fees he receives plus he benefits from the consultant's ability to sell more projects as a result of a guaranteed certification approval. The client doesn't have a clue and often doesn't care because he's being forced by a big customer to become ISO certified. The Mafia never had a sweeter racket than this ISO deal.
NOTE: Yes they did - Vegas! BUT - Vegas is more fun!
There are a lot of ISO consultants and certifying agents in the market so the competition for business is intense. (As a friend of mine complained, it's reached the point where all the exhibit space at the automotive manufacturing and engineering convention in Detroit is taken up by ISO 9000 and QS-9000 consulting firms and certifying agents.) You can see how maintaining a steady source of revenues from consultants would be very tempting when all you have to do is certify their projects meet ISO standards (which are subject to wide interpretation anyway).
NOTE: Give me a break - it's not THAT 'simple'.
I hear ISO leadership in Geneva perceives this, and rightly so, as a major threat to the integrity of the certification process. They recognize the distinct possibility that ISO could be discredited, and they would be out of business.
Also, there is a plan in the works that would give the ISO committee control over who is assigned to conduct the audit and certifying process. This is intended to break up these cozy relationships.
NOTE: Good luck! At the same time, go ahead and stop illegal drug use....
Another idea is to conduct an "audit of audits" so to speak by sending their own people into previously certified companies to determine whether they really comply with ISO standards. This will give them a fairly quick read on the extent of corruption in the ISO system.
NOTE: Geeee. I thought registrar audits were already being audited periodically.
Some people, like myself, have been publicly questioning this practice and pointing out the conflict of interest and potential for collusion for years. Yet nobody at ISO in Geneva wanted to recognize it much less deal with it. So if it's true, this is a major step in the right direction. (Maybe the Olympics scandal has something to do with their interest.)
Stay tuned. Jim>>
Vincent Bozzone
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 20:32:14 -0500
From: Virtuiso
Subject: Re: ISO Conflict of Interest
This is very disturbing (sic). Registrar's have tried almost every conceivable approach to making money from consulting and consultants regularly contract themselves to registrars for auditing.
NOTE: Imagine that! Trying to make money! Contracting ones self to a registrar, too! What WILL come next????
In working with registrars, I have yet to witness an audit where at least one of the auditors wasn't acting like a consultant to the client company in one way or another.
NOTE: That's a fine line of opinion, there Slick!
Also, almost every auditor has handed me a business card with his personal address and phone number and suggested that I contact him if I need help consulting.
NOTE: And what's the problem with one trying to sell him/herr self?
Are we never satisfied with what we are doing or are we all just greedy?
NOTE: We're all just greedy! We want 4 Wheel Drive SUVs!
I attribute the corruption to:
o Too many registrars vying for the same business
NOTE: Duh.
o Registrars compromising their ethics to keep fickle clients
[NOTE: Even UL does this now.... However, add Big Company Contracts...
o The acceptance by registrars of other registrar's certifications to steel clients
o The lack of certification of consultants leading to a wide range of competency
NOTE: Hi! This is Marc, here. I dispute this line item on the grounds that the competency of a consultant has not a **** thing to do with registrars screwing up as this post talks about. I point this out because it appears to have become part of everyone's laundry list of complaints regardless of whether it has any bearing on the situation under discussion or not. Get over it - there are people in every profession who suck bananas and don't know what they're doing. We can't blame them for everything. That's a politicians' job - Let the politicians (and the news media, for that matter) point fingers whether deserved or not. (A close source tells us....)
o In the US, lack of effectiveness of RAB in setting standards and ethics
NOTE: We all know the RAB is an arm of the AIAG which is for the most part GM. AND - TR16949 will serve to confuse the issue. The issue is money to the RAB, ASQC, GM and the AIAG - No more, no less. If my memory serves me well (which it generally doesn't, I admit) the RAB and the IRCA are currently feuding, which should not surprise anyone.....
The separation of auditing and consulting is essential to the third-party registration system continuing. Corruption will kill off the entire industry.
NOTE: I doubt I would go THAT far... Republicans still get elected. Unions still flourish (Well, they're surely not dead!). Organized crime is not so dead as one might believe. Plumbers charge more per hour than a lot of consultants do. And as far as the Olympics go, the introduction of professional atheletes did more to actually ruin the games than corruption in the competition of where to actually hold the games.
Tom Taormina
Virginia City, Nevada
----------snippo----------
This could never happen here, eh folks? Whadda ya think?
[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 03-11-99).]
Excuse my humour.... Yes - I know I'm a sick puppy! From the qs9000 list serve:
----------snippo----------
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 13:22:29 -0500
From: DDILINK
Subject: ISO Conflict of Interest
A colleague sent this to me. Anyone have any further information? Thanks
Vince:
My partner just returned from Geneva and reports an interesting development within ISO. Seems that the close relationship between consultants and ISO certifiers is creating ethics problems.
NOTE: Gasp!
What seems to be happening in the US is that consultants are in a position to choose certifying agents and direct fees to them from a client company seeking ISO certification.
NOTE: Personally, I urge my clients to choose from several, and in fact I provide a 'rating sheet'. I tell them to choose and interview 3 to 5 firms. They usually interview 2 or 3 and get paper from a couple of others. Mebbe some of us have 'ethics'....
That company can pay anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000 for a three year agreement with an ISO-approved registrar. Consultant's fees are additional and $100,000,000 to 150,000 for a small to medium size company is the norm.
This sets the stage for a quid pro quo. The consultant says to the certifying agent, "I'll throw business your way as long as you continue to certify my projects."
NOTE: Nawwwww. Consultants wouldn't do that! Actually we consultants tell registrars, "...send business my way and I'll recommend you as well!..."
The consultant benefits because he can be confident of delivering a certification at the conclusion of a project.
NOTE: Personally, I want CASH MONEY in addition to a successful registration audit!!!
The certifying agent benefits from the fees he receives plus he benefits from the consultant's ability to sell more projects as a result of a guaranteed certification approval. The client doesn't have a clue and often doesn't care because he's being forced by a big customer to become ISO certified. The Mafia never had a sweeter racket than this ISO deal.
NOTE: Yes they did - Vegas! BUT - Vegas is more fun!
There are a lot of ISO consultants and certifying agents in the market so the competition for business is intense. (As a friend of mine complained, it's reached the point where all the exhibit space at the automotive manufacturing and engineering convention in Detroit is taken up by ISO 9000 and QS-9000 consulting firms and certifying agents.) You can see how maintaining a steady source of revenues from consultants would be very tempting when all you have to do is certify their projects meet ISO standards (which are subject to wide interpretation anyway).
NOTE: Give me a break - it's not THAT 'simple'.
I hear ISO leadership in Geneva perceives this, and rightly so, as a major threat to the integrity of the certification process. They recognize the distinct possibility that ISO could be discredited, and they would be out of business.
Also, there is a plan in the works that would give the ISO committee control over who is assigned to conduct the audit and certifying process. This is intended to break up these cozy relationships.
NOTE: Good luck! At the same time, go ahead and stop illegal drug use....
Another idea is to conduct an "audit of audits" so to speak by sending their own people into previously certified companies to determine whether they really comply with ISO standards. This will give them a fairly quick read on the extent of corruption in the ISO system.
NOTE: Geeee. I thought registrar audits were already being audited periodically.
Some people, like myself, have been publicly questioning this practice and pointing out the conflict of interest and potential for collusion for years. Yet nobody at ISO in Geneva wanted to recognize it much less deal with it. So if it's true, this is a major step in the right direction. (Maybe the Olympics scandal has something to do with their interest.)
Stay tuned. Jim>>
Vincent Bozzone
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 20:32:14 -0500
From: Virtuiso
Subject: Re: ISO Conflict of Interest
This is very disturbing (sic). Registrar's have tried almost every conceivable approach to making money from consulting and consultants regularly contract themselves to registrars for auditing.
NOTE: Imagine that! Trying to make money! Contracting ones self to a registrar, too! What WILL come next????
In working with registrars, I have yet to witness an audit where at least one of the auditors wasn't acting like a consultant to the client company in one way or another.
NOTE: That's a fine line of opinion, there Slick!
Also, almost every auditor has handed me a business card with his personal address and phone number and suggested that I contact him if I need help consulting.
NOTE: And what's the problem with one trying to sell him/herr self?
Are we never satisfied with what we are doing or are we all just greedy?
NOTE: We're all just greedy! We want 4 Wheel Drive SUVs!
I attribute the corruption to:
o Too many registrars vying for the same business
NOTE: Duh.
o Registrars compromising their ethics to keep fickle clients
[NOTE: Even UL does this now.... However, add Big Company Contracts...
o The acceptance by registrars of other registrar's certifications to steel clients
o The lack of certification of consultants leading to a wide range of competency
NOTE: Hi! This is Marc, here. I dispute this line item on the grounds that the competency of a consultant has not a **** thing to do with registrars screwing up as this post talks about. I point this out because it appears to have become part of everyone's laundry list of complaints regardless of whether it has any bearing on the situation under discussion or not. Get over it - there are people in every profession who suck bananas and don't know what they're doing. We can't blame them for everything. That's a politicians' job - Let the politicians (and the news media, for that matter) point fingers whether deserved or not. (A close source tells us....)
o In the US, lack of effectiveness of RAB in setting standards and ethics
NOTE: We all know the RAB is an arm of the AIAG which is for the most part GM. AND - TR16949 will serve to confuse the issue. The issue is money to the RAB, ASQC, GM and the AIAG - No more, no less. If my memory serves me well (which it generally doesn't, I admit) the RAB and the IRCA are currently feuding, which should not surprise anyone.....
The separation of auditing and consulting is essential to the third-party registration system continuing. Corruption will kill off the entire industry.
NOTE: I doubt I would go THAT far... Republicans still get elected. Unions still flourish (Well, they're surely not dead!). Organized crime is not so dead as one might believe. Plumbers charge more per hour than a lot of consultants do. And as far as the Olympics go, the introduction of professional atheletes did more to actually ruin the games than corruption in the competition of where to actually hold the games.
Tom Taormina
Virginia City, Nevada
----------snippo----------
This could never happen here, eh folks? Whadda ya think?
[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 03-11-99).]
