Registrars offering to perform Second Party Audits - Have they failed their role?

[Reg Morrison]

In 1991, when I first engaged with an European registrar, their auditor day rate was US$1,250, plus travel time and expenses.

A few years ago, before I retired, I got quotes for ISO 9001 certification from a global registrar for US$1,400 all-inclusive rate.

Prices went up in the same period about 75% in the same period. Obviously there is more competition these days, but registrars and accreditation bodies have failed to deliver confidence and are seeing their business either flat or downward. But you don't have to believe me. Listen to Simon Feary. http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=536744&postcount=1

 

[Reg Morrison]

but system certification alone may be used simply to start the relationship between a B2B customer and its supplier

Certainly, you are entitled to your view, however, your expectation of what a QMS system certification should deliver is SIGNIFICANTLY different than what ISO/IAF expressed.

To the best of my knowledge, those two organizations are in a great place to hear feedback from the business world about the value of accredited certification. If the accredited certification sector were delivering confidence to the stakeholders, I don't think ISO and the IAF would have bothered developing that document isn't it? I am sure they have much better things to do.

Some of you apparently like to bury the head in the sand. That's fine. We can have different opinions.

 

[normzone]

" Do you think that reasonable customers would expect something different? "

Wait a minute - does that mean you know some reasonable customers? I've not met one yet ;-)

 

[John Broomfield]

Certainly, you are entitled to your view, however, your expectation of what a QMS system certification should deliver is SIGNIFICANTLY different than what ISO/IAF expressed.

To the best of my knowledge, those two organizations are in a great place to hear feedback from the business world about the value of accredited certification. If the accredited certification sector were delivering confidence to the stakeholders, I don't think ISO and the IAF would have bothered developing that document isn't it? I am sure they have much better things to do.

Some of you apparently like to bury the head in the sand. That's fine. We can have different opinions.

Reg,

Stakeholders are due more disappointment if they allow ISO/IAF to raise expectations beyond what system certification alone can achieve.

Under promise then over deliver not the other way around.

Or is ISO/IAF redesigning the product?

John

 

[John Broomfield]

Second-party auditing can be a much better service than third-party certification and in some industries the extra investment may pay off.

 

[Reg Morrison]

Reg,

Stakeholders are due more disappointment if they allow ISO/IAF to raise expectations beyond what system certification alone can achieve.

Under promise then over deliver not the other way around.

Or is ISO/IAF redesigning the product?

John

What do you mean by re-designing the product?

From ISO 17021:2011

4.1.2 The overall aim of certification is to give confidence to all parties that a management system fulfils specified requirements.The value of certification is the degree of public confidence and trust that is established by an impartial and competent assessment by a third-party.

From ISO 9001:2008

1.1 General
This International Standard specifies requirements for a quality management system where an organization
a) needs to demonstrate its ability to consistently provide product that meets customer and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, and
b) aims to enhance customer satisfaction through the effective application of the system, including processes for continual improvement of the system and the assurance of conformity to customer and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.

In my view, the ISO/IAF expected outcomes are pretty much in line with the documents above. Reducing expectations of what accredited certification should deliver just belittles the service. Sometimes, you manage expectations by enforcing the suppliers to deliver on what they are expected to provide.

Just look at the marketing of registrars. They don't say ISO 9001 certification is just simple blocking and tackling. The claims for the potential benefits of ISO 9001 certification are much higher than that. So, are registrars involved in misleading advertisement?

 

[John Broomfield]

Reg,

So third party certification comes closer to delivering the benefits of second party auditing.

Selecting suppliers capable of improving a customer's products and services, for example.

John

 

[Randy]

That chart old Reg supplied kinda looks like the economy over the same time period, but I know there simply cannot be a connection between certifications and economic swings....Naaa, never hoppen

 

[AndyN]

Some of you apparently like to bury the head in the sand. That's fine. We can have different opinions.

How do YOU determine it is OTHERS who have their head in the sand? I presented facts about growth and retention which cannot be refuted, for the past 6 years we have seen huge growth and taken on sales people and auditors to deal with it. Facts are that doesn't jive with the cynical viewpoint - YYYYYYYY is also touting the "Sky is falling" for Certification, but not in my world it isn't!

 

[Reg Morrison]

I presented facts about growth and retention which cannot be refuted, for the past 6 years we have seen huge growth and taken on sales people and auditors to deal with it. Facts are that doesn't jive with the cynical viewpoint

If your sales results are going well, I am happy for you. Even more impressive if the performance is good when the market is struggling.

But, when you say that you presented facts, I have to disagree. You made a claim. Facts have to be supported by verifiable data, and that threshold has not been reached.

Actually the other day, you had the following exchange in a Linkedin discussion:

But, the only database I could access to verify those numbers provide a slightly smaller total.

From this enlightening exchange, the most disturbing aspect (for me) is the fact that some people working inside of the accredited certification process is on the record stating that the ISO/IAF expected outcomes for accredited certification is unattainable and can not be supported. Further, the ISO/IAF are misleading the business world in creating false, overly ambitious expectations. That's very concerning to me and it should be for the whole quality profession. The perpetuation of a certification system that is not intended to bring confidence about supplier's performance, in CLEAR opposition of what ISO 17021 states what the aim is.