PJR (Perry Johnson) Reputation - What is it? Is it deserved?

[8P6S5Certs]

I was agast to find out that the calibration lab that my new employer uses is registered by Perry Johnson. However I have to admit that it doesn't mean that my cal lab is not competent. It just seems to be a matter of Perception.

I am now concerned with the Perception of the new philosophy at the combined Entella and Intertek organization. Will firing most or all of the independent sub-contractor Lead Auditors make it not as bad an organization as it might have been perceived to be?

 

[Jim Wynne]

I am now concerned with the Perception of the new philosophy at the combined Entella and Intertek organization. Will firing most or all of the independent sub-contractor Lead Auditors make it not as bad an organization as it might have been perceived to be?

I don't know about Intertek, but I used to work for a company that did a lot of testing business with Entela. Entela jumped into the ISO/QS registrar business in the 1990s, and performed registration audits on companies which were (combined) spending millions of dollars with Entela for lab services. I don't think a more clear-cut case of conflict of interest ever existed, but no one ever seemed to mind.

 

[Hershal]

Thing to remember about PJR and cal labs that they (alledgedly) accredit.....PJ is NOT recognized by any MRA (e.g., ILAC) and so any accrediting body that is recognized (e.g., IAS, A2LA) can not accept a lab that is accredited by PJ.....maybe for 9K, but not to support ISO/IEC 17025. Intertek is one organization that has multiple labs accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by IAS (an ILAC signatory) and others.....

Hope this helps.

 

[Craig H.]

Thing to remember about PJR and cal labs that they (alledgedly) accredit.....PJ is NOT recognized by any MRA (e.g., ILAC) and so any accrediting body that is recognized (e.g., IAS, A2LA) can not accept a lab that is accredited by PJ.....maybe for 9K, but not to support ISO/IEC 17025. Intertek is one organization that has multiple labs accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by IAS (an ILAC signatory) and others.....

Hope this helps.

FWIW, we got busted for just this issue with 2 instrument calibrations done for us by a company accredited to 17025 by PJ. We are a 9001 shop. (BTW, this was a few years ago).

I had the opinion that it was not the first time that our auditor had encountered this, either.

In fact, I started a thread here a few days ago asking for help finding a calibrator for just these instruments.

 

[AndyN]

Furthermore, in the land of Laboratory Accreditation, there are other similar 'snake oil' sales folks. One organization sells a simple five step process, which doesn't include an actual visit to the lab. to verify the data they supply:mg:

Yes, you read it correctly, NO ON SITE VISIT!!

Why? To keep costs down!

Happily, they too aren't members of ILAC, either. But do customers care........?

 

[Stephen Rubino]

I encountered a couple of Perry Johnson "certified" cal labs recently who raised more than an eyebrow. One I found calibrating micrometers, etc., which was within their scope of accredidation, but the gages required recalibration when they were finished...

The other was "calibrating" a surface tester and a circular geometry gage when the scope of their accredidation was strictly for gage blocks and dimensional gages.

 

[Craig H.]

I encountered a couple of Perry Johnson "certified" cal labs recently who raised more than an eyebrow. One I found calibrating micrometers, etc., which was within their scope of accredidation, but the gages required recalibration when they were finished...

The other was "calibrating" a surface tester and a circular geometry gage when the scope of their accredidation was strictly for gage blocks and dimensional gages.

I have encountered a PJ certified lab calibrating outside of their scope as well. In fairness, though, who's fault is that? I don't see where it is fair to blame PJ...

 

[Stijloor]

I have encountered a PJ certified lab calibrating outside of their scope as well. In fairness, though, who's fault is that? I don't see where it is fair to blame PJ...

Certified, accredited, approved, bodies, notified bodies, registrars, accreditors, signatories, certifiers, regulatory, statutory, CE, CE Mark, certified products, certified systems, outside scope, inside scope, etc.

I need a break........:mg:

No wonder people are confused. Yes, buyer beware. But have we seen how many posts here at The Cove are about clarifying terms?

Stijloor.

 

[Wes Bucey]

I have encountered a PJ certified lab calibrating outside of their scope as well. In fairness, though, who's fault is that? I don't see where it is fair to blame PJ...

Yes! Whose fault is it if any organization performs illegal, unethical, or immoral acts? We have consistently said a third party auditor takes a snapshot of the activity he observes at the time of his visit. In addition, "exclusions" are always allowed for processes and activities which are outside of the scope of the QMS being audited. Hence, a TS16949 auditor does not audit the finance arm of an automotive supplier nor the activities involved in making logo toys for car dealers as giveaways during sales promotions.
So, in fairness, is the complaint that PJR

1. was lax and didn't examine ALL the activities in the scope of the registration?
2. was criminal in seeing the "illegal" activity and "abetted" it by covering up?
3. was incompetent and didn't have a clue what it was registering as long as the check cleared?
4. did everything it was supposed to and the observed "out of scope" activity of the calibration firm had absolutely nothing to do with its registered activities?

We have agreed consistently that PJR has a poor reputation among quality professionals. My curiosity is twofold:

1. If the company does illegal or incompetent work, how has it managed to stay in business for so long?
2. Has anyone actually documented illegal or incompetent activity (versus "sour grapes" anecdotes) of PJR? If yes, who got a report? What was the result? If the result was clean, why are we still beating these folk to death over a false perception? If the result was dirty, why haven't we heard about the punishment or reprimand? If the bodies which grant registrar status to PJR have actually been presented with documented proof of PJR errors or wrongdoing and done nothing, how can we trust their endorsement of ANY OTHER registrar?