|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums |
|
|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums |
|
 The Cove Forums
 Registrars and Registration
 What Company Is Your Registrar? (Page 2)
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2 |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: What Company Is Your Registrar? |
|
TBMC Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 1 |
posted 04 August 1999 02:49 PM
   
We are recently registered to ISO9002 (94), QS9000 & TE Supplement (98) using NSF/ISR. We found them very thorough and appropriately helpful (within the constraints of external auditors, clear definitions and interpretations). We would recommend them. IP: Logged |
|
Dawn Forums Contributor Posts: 206 |
posted 04 August 1999 05:10 PM
We have just undergone an assessment with BVQI. Although, I heard several stories that they too do not write up nonconformances and it seems to be a big joke, I was happily suprised. Maybe a little too suprised at how thorough and well done the audit was. He was an excellent auditor, and he gave me many new value added ideas. He dug alot further than I thought he would for an assessment. I was impressed with his expertise, although the reasons could possibly (never know for sure) because he just went through the auditor re-exam and the AIAG is coming down very hard on auditors because of the several reasons stated in this forum. I was also informed of that at FMEA training this past spring. I think the AIAG has decided to make them work for their pay check. At any rate, I was very pleased (and very worn out) at the end of the three day audit. IP: Logged |
|
David Guffey Forums Contributor Posts: 49 |
posted 21 October 1999 01:36 PM
Having been through the registrar selection process twice in less than three years (2 different companies), I feel comfortable sharing my experience. First of all, I think we can all agree there are several/many good firms out there. The TUVs, DNVs, ABS-QEs, and more "big names" are all good. The consideration has to be with "chemistry", cost, and perception of customer service. I would never select UL. Years ago, they lied about their credentials, claiming something before it was reality. I lost respect for them right then. Perry Johnson treads a thin line regarding consultation. That, plus their rude cold calls turned me off. In the ISO 9001 world, I selected ABS-Quality Evaluations out of Houston. They were and are excellent. Three and 1/2 years ago, they were also hungry and put together quite an attractive financial package. Since that time, they have ceased their customer surveys of the process and auditor performance. That proved to be a dissatisfier to me. That does not take away from the excellence and consistency I saw from auditor to auditor. In the ISO 9002/QS-9000 world, I have selected Smithers Quality Assessments out of Akron, Ohio. I did this for several reasons. First, they are among the most knowlegable about QS-9000 of the twenty registrars with whom I spoke. Second, they are reasonably local to me in southwest Michigan. (No one should tolerate huge auditor travel costs any more.) Third, they have been very service/customer oriented. And, they were cost competitive. I interviewed NSF out of Ann Arbor. From their auditor, I got incorrect answers to some of the questions. They were out. I interviewed Entela. They did OK, but when I made contact with their references, I was given the horror stories of the repeat follow-up visits and extra billings. And, now I understand they might be under RAB investigation. If this is at all helpful to anyone, great. The most important thing to do is to set your criteria, that is your customer expectations, and interview, interview, interview. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
mac@home Forums Contributor Posts: 11 |
posted 03 May 2000 06:11 PM
We're registered by UL, and so far I've heard "less flexible" , "reads into standards" "would not recommend", and elsewhere, suspicions of an auditing "quota" of non-conformances and reports of "quirks". Does anyone have anything good to say about them, or at least a few more recent tales of woe? Thanks IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 2807 |
posted 03 May 2000 06:21 PM
quote:Yes - They're practically unimpeachable. IP: Logged |
|
mac@home Forums Contributor Posts: 11 |
posted 04 May 2000 12:46 AM
Unimpeachable? Does that mean they're respected and won't be losing their ability to register companies, or you'll never be able to shake loose of them as your registrar? IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 2807 |
posted 04 May 2000 05:11 AM
UL is well respected and hard to challange. Example: When I briefly interfaced with the Navy they wanted UL as registrar because they believed no one would be able to claim any 'funny business' or such was involved. Much of this is perception gained from people misunderstanding stuff like the UL label which they mistakenly think has been tested and is thus 'safe'. Few people realize that you (for all intents and purposed) purchase the UL seal of approval - they don't test squat. IP: Logged |
|
Wallybaloo Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 7 |
posted 04 May 2000 10:33 AM
Ditto to the ALM post re BSI and UL. Early on, we were concerned about BSI because we'd heard they were too 'nit-picky' and rigid. Instead, we found them to be very reasonable and helpful. There's nothing easy about their assessors, but we've made many improvements as a result of working with them. Their reputation and name familiarity is especially helpful when European sales are a consideration. IP: Logged |
|
isodog Forums Contributor Posts: 26 |
posted 01 June 2000 11:38 PM
Marc, Marc, Marc, UL doesn't test squat??? They have a HUGE (biggest I've seen)testing facility (over 2000 employees) near me in Northbook, IL. They do many fire safety and electrical tests and other stuff. The ISO/QS 9000 registrations isn't the biggest part of their business. Is it a sideline? I've found UL to be a compenent auditor/registrar. For better or worse, they do the best job of quality contol (one auditor has the same interpretation as another)of any of the registrars. I have personal knowledge they have withdrawn from a company where the Management Rep. said documents were being forged (he was fired, I wish it was, but this is not me!). The problem I have with UL is they do not seem interested in companies with less than 500 employees. These are where my customers are. I would like to use UL, but they are not cost competitive for small businesses. By the way, a picky auditor is the Management Repesentative's (not necessarily the consultants) best friend. Dave IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 2807 |
posted 02 June 2000 10:33 AM
quote:Yes - they sure do a lot of testing. But - just because you see a UL listing label on a product does not mean that specific product has been tested. The majority of UL 'approvals' are not, in fact, given on the basis of any testing of any kind on the specific product . UL testing services are not related to testing for giving the UL approval.
quote:Anecdotal evidence, including some in this thread (and several other threads here), does not support this. However, each of us has different experiences with different auditors. quote:And what does this tell us? It is good that your experiences with UL have been positive. Many have not had the same positive experiences, however. IP: Logged |
|
BWoods Forums Contributor Posts: 29 |
posted 02 June 2000 12:18 PM
My Experience: ISO-9001 = DNV Very good all around. VDA 6.1 = TUV Very poor auditors in Europe
IP: Logged |
|
Randy Forum Wizard Posts: 104 |
posted 02 June 2000 02:20 PM
We use AOQC Moody as our Registrar. I'm not impressed and I'm personally disappointed with with what I believe the lack of veracity of our registration. IP: Logged |
|
Chris W Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 2 |
posted 02 June 2000 02:33 PM
My company uses ABS Quality Evaluations. The biggest reason that we decided on ABS was our parent company uses ABS. So far, we do not regret the decision. On a side note: I do not trust Perry Johnson. I received a phone call from someone at Perry Johnson speaking negatively about another Registrar. The person implied there was a major problem with the other Registrar. When I checked in to what this person said, it was a minor issue. I do not mind other Registrars contacting me to see if I am happy with my current Registrar. I am sure they all want to drum up new business. BUT I do not like someone planting a seed of doubt with no evidence to back it up! IP: Logged |
|
Don Reid Forums Contributor Posts: 35 |
posted 06 June 2000 09:58 AM
Personnally, British Standards are the one for me. Very helpful and good, practical advice. Years ago I experienced a continuing assessment from another body. The guy waded through six (yes, 6) years of purchase orders until he found one that had not been correctly authorised. He could not write out the non-conformity quick enough! What was ironic, the order was for toilet cleaning supplies. He was impervious to appeals. He, and his organisation, took the view that whatever they said at the time of the visit was fully justified, and that I must submit a corrective action plan clear this one point. I changed to BSI. IP: Logged |
|
Sam Forums Contributor Posts: 98 |
posted 07 June 2000 08:34 AM
We signed on with Perry Johnson and became registetred May 2000. Auditors were good; Knowledgeable and professional. Registrar administration was poor; would not return calls, poor scheduling practices, high employee turnover. IP: Logged |
|
Oscar Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 3 |
posted 19 June 2000 11:08 AM
My company has been registered with DNV (Long Beach) since 1994. They have been very good to work with and consistent in their interpretation of the standard. We have had several disagreements in interpretation over the years and have discussed these with their Technical Manager in Houston and with his assistance have resolved all issues. We could not use Perry Johnson. I like many others do not like the cold phone calls or their impression of other registrars. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Daniel J. Rupright Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 3 |
posted 19 June 2000 04:18 PM
Underwriters Labratories IP: Logged |
This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2 All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks! - Marc
Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
UBB 5.45c
The Cove Privacy Policy 