posted 22 November 1998 05:51 AM               

What I would like to do, if enough folks respond, it to put together a 'recommended registrar' listing or something to that effect.

posted 22 November 1998 08:35 PM               

UCAS........my choice is URS out of London
RvA........my choice is NTC-CS out of Boxboro Mass
RAB ...well I guess NTS-CS for that as well

QS would be either. Have had experience with several auditors at both for several years (some when they were with other registrars) and have nothing but thorough, clean professional audits. Both have US and European offices.

ISO14000......URS

$$$ they are equally competitive....

posted 22 November 1998 11:54 PM               

Short list for me is:
LRQA
AGA
Entela

posted 15 December 1998 07:33 PM               

I have noticed some inconsisitency between auditors, as far as interpretations.....i guess this is to be expected to some degree. I know of a company.that uses AQA..I know this company intimately, (not my current employer).....AQA registered them (ISO 9001), with no non-compliances..I found this incredible, sinc the company is wrought with problems. Makes me wonder how thorough the auditors are. FYI

posted 19 December 1998 08:42 PM               

Yes - as promised, I've started a basic Registrar Comparison spreadsheet. Take a look. Comments welcomed. I can add columns, etc. If you will forward to me any info I will fill in and update. The current data is not complete. I have to get man-days and some other stuff.

A 'Brief' on registrar considerations can be found at Elsmar.com/pdf_files/Registrar_B.pdf , by the by.

posted 27 February 1999 05:04 AM               

Anyway - in respopnse to your post: This thing is all over the map. Some come in, rush through and get out. Others (ahemmm, like me) are snot nosed independent councils - give us money and we'll look far and deep and talk to everyone you ever knew or have ever spoken with looking for a hole. And it is registrar independent. Rewgistrars may think they have their auditors 'calibrated' but they don't.

I don't know a thing about NASI except what you posted here. Sorry I can't help there. All I can say is you cannot plan on their 'support' by giving management 'the boot' on an issue. As you have experienced with couple of auditors you have experience with - each has his/her own way. In some ways it's a view of what is 'appropriate' by each person.

The following is from a person who recently e-mailed me which further points out some 'problems' with ISO and registrars. This person cites an experience with NSAI - read closely.

-------snippo-------

Subject: Re: Registrar Quality
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 02:29:01 +0000
From: Marc Smith
Organization: Cayman Systems
To: XXXX@aol.com

First of all, I want you to know that I *sincerely* appreciate not only your feedback, but the detail into which you have gone as well. I assure you I will keep the source info confidential. I believe this is in response to my saying let the registrar determine whether you're compliant to the spec or not. I am mainly going to respond to the auditing end of it as I am under no delusion that registrars know shit from shine-ola, as my pappy used to say. They are inconsistent, can be (and are every day) bought off in one way or another, and are becoming more and more of a useless entity which basically is a money hole. Your portrayal of FedEx was excellent! And, sadly, typical

Actually, I do agree with you and know of what you speak. In fact, I am at a new client facility this week (QS update) - a UL registration last fall I have to laugh at. No way they were compliant at the time of the audit and they're far from it now. What surprised me was UL's reputation for being sticklers. Geeze - what sleeze. As I have now passed through over 6 years of implementations I find registrars becoming more and more useless, in fact.

And a brief: I have been involved in ISO since 1992-3 and took my first 'Lead Auditor' course in April 1994. I was 'hip' to QS before it was released by a year with my first implementation about 4 years ago. I haven't been at it 'forever' but I've been at it for a while. I have planned implementation at large companies (Motorola - Semi-Conductor sector - some 20,000 souls all in all) and small (Eagle Chemicals - 14 souls at the time). I'm not sure what an 'expert' is, but I do have a bit of experience. My resume is at /resume.html

So far, none of my implementation clients have had a registrar problem. In large part (IMHO) because I force them to know the spec - all managers. And at least one of them has to fully understand how QS applies across the board. I see compliance with ISO or QS as a function of a management person and I see registration as an exercise after compliance has been achieved.

No - I do not see the registrar as the sole source for compliance confirmation. As I said above, I expect each company / facility to have a local expert. I will not take a contract unless I believe they understand this and I have 'quit' several companies which did not provide the person. My point is that I believe after the major systems are established they should be reviewed for compliance prior to revision by the company expert.

No - I do not see compliance to ISO or QS as the job of an internal auditor. I believe the internal auditor function is being sold with minimal basis for the neccessity. With consideration to the significant problems we 'professionals' have in interpreting QS (and to a lesser degree ISO) I find it amusing that folks want to take floor personnel and managers and make them 'professionals' in ISO or QS. Part of my bias may be in that so many companies are streached so lean that folks have trouble getting their jobs done as it is - not to mention throwing on another 'job'. I would rather have them doing the job they are hired to do well and spending their time there.

I have also been privy to many conversations where the internal auditor admits that s/he 'didn't find problems' in large part due to personal connections with one or more of the folks being audited. "John's group is under the gun and I saw no reason to complicate matters" is not at all uncommon.

My latest client also illustrates what I often find - with so much going on the planned audits just stopped. As one plant manager told me "I'm trying to get product out the door. There won't be a company to audit if I don't get these messes cleaned up." Now I know that's not what we want to hear, but often times it is the 'Real Life' of the situation.

To me, to believe that internal auditors are some kind of saviour is silly. And I simply believe out-sourced audits make good sense. Admittedly some internal auditing scenarios using company personnel work out well - for as far as they go - but I have say that I believe the majority are not what they could be with out-sourced audits.

This said, it is clear that there is an ever increasing legion of 'qualified' auditors who are trash. I always run my clients past an RAB auditor prior to pre-assessment - to check me, actually. Several times I have gotten trash. One guy's big bitch was a confusing procedural numbering system. He was right - it was confusing - but that was not his business. He was an ex- college professor who saw the $ signs in ISO and auditing. He made me look pretty bad with his harping about changing the numbering system (this was a facility of a large multi-national corporation). But - he was 'certified' by the RAB as a QS Lead Auditor!!! And he had never once held a manufacturing job!!!

Your point is well taken. You will get no argument from me on crappy registrars and auditors. But this is all fast becoming a joke. When I started consulting in ISO the registrars checked things and did an 'overly' good job. Now - they are falling into the $ rut. I now see them as a 'baseline' function. This is to say they provide for your facility a base line of what *they* will accept (which in many cases is next to anything). If anything I misspoke by saying registrars should check for compliance to the spec.

My point in pointing to the registrars is that anyone worth his/her salt can pretty much tell after a thorough review of a systems manual and the supporting level 2 procedures whether the company is compliant to ISO or QS (systems design wise). If a registrar does a document review and pronounces everything OK and then comes to me and tells me I have a major nonconformance because the design of 1 or more systems is not compliant during a registration audit, I really want to know what I paid for a document review for. In fact, I council my clients - Your pre-assesment should be limited to document reviews. At Motorola, Guadalajara we had LRQA auditors spend the pre-assessment in separate conference rooms. Not once did we let them out onto the factory floor. They went thorugh level 2's and the called out level 3's - down to control plans and control plan content, etc. Company employees responsible for their documentation went through it and provided 'evidence' through 'runners'. All I want at a pre-assessment is the OK that all the defined systems are compliant and that the entire intent of ISO (or QS) is addressed. *I* will ensure the folks are following the procedures (as will the registrar during the registration and subsequent audits). You give me those level 2 documents and I will tell you whether a company's internal systems are compliant or not to the spec. No - I cannot yet tell if folks are doing what they are supposed to - that's an internal auditing function and a function of the assessment (and subsequent) audits.

If my systems are compliant, my expectation is that any company with any smarts at all will ensure a review of any change to a 'master' system by the company 'knowledge base'. With that said, the only significant change to 'master' systems should be when the spec is updated anyway (unless there is a significant change in the company/facility as a whole).

I stand by my opinion that internal audits should be out-sourced. Companies have enough problems even reactiing to the audit findings when the audit reveals problems. Reaction is where the real meat is anyway. I wouldn't want my employees auditing - I want them out there solving problems whether current (reacting) or possible (preventive actions). I want to let them do their business. I don't want to saddle them with another job to LEARN.

And lets face it - you don't send someone to a lead auditor course and expect a professional. A guy called the other morning - hell, he called me frantic on a Sunday morning at 7:30AM (I can handle it - I'm a professional! Hee hee hee!) - he told me he took the (AIAG?) QS internal auditor course and did well on planning and such but said he screwed up the interpretations part. He wanted to know if that was typical. I told him what I believe - there are grand expectations that internal auditors know and be able to interpret the spec. GIVE me a break. Auditors within registrar firms often do not agree on interpretations and they're supposed to be professionals dealing with QS and/or ISO every day! And we want an inspector (this fella was a line inspector) to interpret it? Give me a break again! Apparently this guy's supervisor is pissed because he didn't pass as didn't another person from his company who went through it. If it was my company, I would want that guy learning more about inspection - I didn't hire him to be an auditor.

A last thought. Take a spreadsheet and figure costs. For many companies it is simply not cost effective. Training, total time off job, total audit hours per year, losses through transfers and turn-over. Often they would be better off hiring someone just to do internal audits. Outsourcing them eliminates burden - you pay only the hours.

My opinion. However, I again want to say I *appreciate* your e-mail. More than you may understand. It *has* helped me calibrate myself to some increasingly troubling realities - registrars are going for the money in this case. It is the case that I believe the push for internal auditors is a $$$$ based push from interested (to say the least) parties. I look to the nuclear / banking / financial models for auditing guidelines - inside audits are for compliance to internal systems / requirements (do what you say) while the meat of compliance to spec is 'company expert' and external audits terratory.

With all this said - it will not change my standard - which is to ensure a client is compliant to the spec and that folks are doing 'what they say' (I will say several have not 'let me do my job'). I will NOT assume the registrar will be bought off and will thus will be 'gentle'. In a recent conversation with a client I said (several times, actually) that they would not have wanted ME as their auditor at registration - that they would not have passed. No way. He agreed this was the case.

We are becoming a world of auditors and audits - and I'm not convinced they are but a temporary step in the long history of manufacturing and providing services. Going back to the trade routes and civilizations of hundreds, nay, thousands of years ago, the auditors were sent by the king (or whatever the local ruler was called). Guess why.

Unfortunately I have some old-school republicanism in me. If I make a good product and it works for you and you want to buy it, then do so. Don't tell me how to make it. If I produce crap or have many 'nonconformances' shipped, you will stop buying from me. It's no one's business how I make or do something. tis is all about LIABILITY IMHO. Nothing more - nothing less.

XXXX@aol.com wrote:

> Hello Marc,
> I decided to take this off the list because I thought it in poor taste
> and not necessarily appropriate for all to see.
> I totally disagree with your statement about the jobs being done by
> registrars. I don't mean to say all registrars are either bad or good. Nor
> that all auditors are either bad or good. But I do know of some bad registrars
> and some bad auditors.
>
> I should preface my information by letting you know that my company is a
> consulting firm which specializes in helping companies get and maintain ISO
> along with TQM and a few other things including a software product which helps
> with quality record keeping for both ISO and QS. While I am not asking you to
> go to our web site if you want more information our web site is at
> Http://members.aol.com/zzzz/xxxx.html. Asie from that I will get on with
> my examples.
>
> I know of 3 companies who have been audited by U.L. which had glaring
> wholes in the system. In each case the auditor just turned their head and
> looked the other way. Additionally in a separate audit of one of the companies
> the auditor said "If I come back tomorrow morning, I'm sure that will be fixed
> so I will audit it then." And he did just that. The worst offender has so
> much conflicting information in their procedures and manual it is an auditors
> nightmare. In their case I only try to teach their internal auditors what to
> look for. However, each class keeps questioning the standard requirements
> since they keep passing their audits. It is impossible to explain to an
> internal auditor why the standard says one thing and the registrar doesn't
> even audit for it or give them a non conformance.
>
> Two of the people in my company did two preassessment audits on a company.
> The first had major non conformances in almost every section so they asked to
> come back after they corrected the first findings and do a much lessor audit
> the second time. We found they still had major non conformances in three
> sections of the standard. The biggest being document control. Mostly a people
> doing their own copying and then having obsolete documents. (A management
> discipline issue.) The company was due to be audited by TUV Rheinland but we
> knew how their auditor audited and indicated they would not pass without
> fixing the problems. A company they knew had used BSI so they decided to use
> BSI instead. BSI passed them even with the major problems. When one of the
> people we know well asked about not being strict, the auditor told him that
> they used to be strict but too many people complained so they didn't want to
> get people mad so they made most things observations instead.
>
> In an audit a couple of years ago by NSAI, one of the auditors spent two whole
> days in an office going over documents and asking the employees if they
> complied. She actually gave them non conformances because the line between the
> header and the text of the procedure was not all the way to the edge of the
> page on some of the procedures. At the same time she never audited three
> sections of the standard. This was their first audit and by NSAI requirements
> all areas were suppose to be audited. She is no longer with the company.
>
> I have personally been on two of the UL audits and an audit by TUV Rheinland
> which has been a waste of money for the company being audited. They got a
> piece of paper on the wall but not a good audit.
>
> At the same time I have seen the auditors go off the other way and require
> things that are not in the standard. The same NSAI auditor when questioned by
> our person indicated that they were not limited to the standard. It was their
> job to help make sure the company had a good system and that it met their
> requirements not just the requirements of the standard. In their case when her
> manager was contacted they played emotional blackmail with the complaint. The
> customer had a deadline from a corporate office for getting registered and
> NSAI said that if they wanted to challange it there would be a delay in their
> registration of several month while the review was done.
>
> As recently as 2 weeks ago I had a client who was audited by an ABS auditor
> who made them call us and have us provide training records for all of our
> trainers. We were qualified as a company by them in 1993 and have provided
> services about once a year ever since. When we provide our lead auditor
> training certificates again along with all our company information which was
> obsoleted several years back since they only need to keep it for two years by
> their procedures, he still gave them an observation because he did not
> recognize one of the companies who provided the lead assessor training.
>
> As you may have seen on the list we have had clients who have gotten minor non
> conformances or observations for nnot having ansi Z540 or Guide 25. WHile I
> agree with the messages about using old documents, it is sometimes hard to get
> the auditor to agree. And some feel they have sole power.
>
> We have written corrective action requests on behalf of our clients or helped
> our client write corrective actions for non conformances which were not valid.
> TUV Rheinland is the only one who has done a good job of reviewing the
> nonconformance and the information provided and gotten back to the client in a
> timely manner. The others either do not reply or like NSAI use blackmail to
> keep the complaint from being addressed.
>
> The funniest response I got was from Lloyd's in regards to FedEX whom I feel
> even today bought their certificate and Lloyd's. Having personally tried to
> obtain a corrective action response from Fedex all the way from the local
> office to their corporate customer service and quality group without response,
> I wrote an action request to Lloyd's. Background: if you have time and want to
> follow up on this try calling you local service rep and ask them if they know
> what ISO is and the company policy. Also what their procedures are for
> corrective action and providing a response when requested by the customer.
> They don't know the policy, don't know what ISO is and can not get or provide
> a response letter no matter what. Our company is small so I thought maybe you
> had to be a big customer to get a response. I asked one of my clients who at
> the time was 12th on the list of American electronic and electromechanic parts
> distributors. They send out numerous packages per day using both UPS and
> FEDEX. They got the same response.
>
> When I talked to an auditor from Lloyd's at a local ISO USer Group he said he
> would look into it for me. Which he did pass on to someone. We got a letter
> from Lloyd's which included a page from FEDEX which said they were registered
> world wide and what the scope was. The letter went on to say they had in fact
> done their audit from the corporate office with calls to selected branches (or
> local offices). So I tried again with some of the major locations such as
> Miami, Los Angeles, San Fransisco, and New Jersey. The results were the same.
> They had no clue as to what I (or my cleints) were asking for.
>
> In summary: for every four good audits I have been in with my clients, I have
> seen one bad. The bad was either not really looking at the system or injecting
> their own standards as opposed to the ISO standards.

This is, and has been, common.

> In my conversation with one registrar, this is expected to get worse since
> more and more of the registrars are going to sub contractors. What they have
> seen is a control issue with the sub's they had used and so they are avoiding
> going that way. In some cases, the sub wants to make a name for themself and
> over audits. In others they feel if the customer is happy they will get more
> work.
>
> Sorry for the length of this message

It is GREAT! Thanks! Not too long. Well detailed, and I appreciate it!

> but I think you should be aware that all
> is not as you seem to think it is.

Sadly, I have been aware of this for some years - it is precisely why I put
up my web site over 3 years ago.

posted 16 May 1999 07:33 AM               

Subject: ISO9000 Digest - 18 Oct 1997 to 23 Oct 1997
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 00:54:01 -0500
From: Automatic digest processor
Reply-To: ISO9000 Standards Discussion
To: Recipients of ISO9000 digests

There are 7 messages totalling 285 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

1. Recommended ISO Registrars/Berry
2. Recommended ISO Registrars/Miholland
3. Recommended ISO Registrars/Turner
4. Recommended ISO Registrars/Bigelow
5. Recommended ISO Registrars/Randall
6. Recommended ISO Registrars/Labertew
7. Recommended ISO Registrars/Richardson

-------------------------

From: IN%"RCR9000@aol.com" 21-OCT-1997 09:29:19.90

In a message dated 97-10-18 21:09:04 EDT, you write:

> My question is: Has anyone had any experience or recommendations
> regarding the four firms we will be interviewing? Or maybe a highly
> recommended alternate registrar to those listed?
>
> * National Quality Assurance
> * DNV Det Norsne Veritas
> * Perry Johnson and Associates
> * Intertek
>
> Thanks for your consideration/response.
>
> mqarep@inland.net

------------>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<----------

Subject: Re: Recommended ISO Registrars/Berry
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:39:14 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

From: BerryOV@aol.com

In response to your inquirey, here is a little data on some of the Registrar
you indicated:

1. DNV -- good reputation in the industry -- many great people -- as will all Registrars the Lead Auditor you are assigned is critical.

2. Intertek -- solid organization -- good Auditors -- good customer service.

3. Perry Johnson Registrar (PJR) -- not to be confused with sister organization Perry Johnson Inc. (PJI - Training & Consulting) -- rumors are that they are under investigation by RvA (Dutch Accreditation Body) and may have sanctions imposed -- use great caution -- may want to contact RvA to confirm their status before selection.

Since, ANSI-RAB Accreditated Registrars are accepted world wide there are currently 80 (+) registrars operating in North America -- there are many excellent registrar to select from. You may also want to consider PRO, Inc. in Northville, MI - contact Mr. Chuck Schleyer at 800-793-4408.

Oliver V. Berry
QS-Lead Auditor (ANSI-RAB)
QS-Senior Auditor (QSA)
QS9000 - Certified Auditor - AIAG

-----------------------------

Subject: Re: Recommended ISO Registrars/Miholland
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:40:04 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

From: IN%"jgm@iAmerica.net" "Jim Miholland" 18-OCT-1997 20:57:57.03

Recommendation:
Have some experience with several registrars, very impressed with KPMG, recommend inclusion in your interview list. Jim Milholland
Milholland Quality Consulting

--------------------------

Subject: Re: Recommended ISO Registrars/Turner
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:40:55 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

From: IN%"rgt@glo.be" "Robert Turner" 19-OCT-1997 06:08:34.51

You should really be looking for registrars with a stronger international profile. In Northern Europe DNV are well known, but I've never heard of the others. Lloyds, SGS have a good international profile, maybe also TUV, BVQI.

Bob Turner.

my own opinions of course.....

*************************
Robert Turner, Zigomar Belgium

Office tel +32 16 20 07 87 fax +32 16 20 76 67
e-mail office@zigomar.com

Home tel/fax +32 3 449 90 13
e-mail rgt@glo.be

*********************************

Subject: Re: Recommended ISO Registrars/Bigelow
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:41:23 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

From: IN%"TQM_JimBig@compuserve.com" "Jim Bigelow" 20-OCT-1997 17:17:43.52

In my experience, DNV, ABS, BSI and SGS all do a good job and
well established global reputations.

Jim Bigelow

------------------------

Subject: Re: Recommended ISO Registrars/Randall
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:42:44 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

----------------

I have worked as a full time employee for NQA (National Quality Assurance) and as a contract auditor (I left them to pursue consulting opportunities about 2 yrs ago). I have also worked as a contract auditor for ITS Intertek. I have had friends/associates who worked as contract auditors for "Perry Johnson and Associates". I know very little about DNV.

Based on all of this information, I would strongly encourage anyone seeking registration to select either NQA or Intertek. I know that they are both very good registrars with good auditors. I am on a first name basis with the presidents of both of these registrars. NQA and Intertek both have my highest recommendation. In fact, I currently have a consulting client going through ISO 9002 registration with Intertek. I have only heard bad reports about "Perry Johnson and Associates." Although it was "hearsay," I trust the sources enough to take their advice.

BTW, I understand that many of the auditors at NQA and Intertek use my book (Randall's Practical Guide to ISO 9000) to assist them in interpreting the standard.

Richard C. Randall
Author of "Randall's Practical Guide to ISO 9000"
http://home.earthlink.net/~rpr-online/
rcr9000@aol.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Recommended ISO Registrars/Labertew
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:43:40 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

From: IN%"LALABERTEW@prodigy.net" "LALABERTEW" 21-OCT-1997 10:46:31.24

Perry Johnson is very competitive. I've interviewed 2 Lead Assessors. Make sure whoever you use you interview the Lead Assessor. Don't know the other registrars.

Lowell Labertew

---------------------------
Subject: Re: Recommended ISO Registrars/Richardson
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:44:37 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

From: IN%"roypiper@erols.com" 21-OCT-1997 19:15:43.43

I used the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) in registering the 11 sites of a durable goods manufacturer around the world, including 5 in Europe, a site in Korea and one in Japan. They were recommended to me by folks at Unisys and Beckman Instruments; the latter have used them globally as well. They have also done work for Apple Computer. They are extremely "user friendly" and their auditors, at least the two we used, were Irish, real pros and expert at interviewing and working with employees without terrifying them. They are small, making all their clients "special". If you contact them, I have the names of the two of auditors I worked with and who I would highly recommend.

Good luck.

Roy Richardson

posted 23 May 1999 02:27 AM               

Subject: Re: Q: Registrar Selection /Cogan/Naish
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 14:21:31 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

From: PNaish@aol.com
Subject: Re: Q: Registrar Selection /Cogan/Naish

Ken,

Too answer the second question first. There may be some consultants who will give you an unbiased opinion. I can't exactly say who but I am sure there are those who exist. As a consultant it is hard for me to be truly unbiased. I have had clients use a number of different registrars but can say in all honesty that I have a couple of registrars I would never use again and a couple whom I favor because they the client a good fair audit for their money.

If you are going to use a consultant to help with the implementation you may want to listen to their recommendations. They will be able to recommend companies they have used and have found successful. If you are doing the implementation on your own, then I might check with several consultants and see who they recommend but more importantly check with other companies in your business segment.

As to question number one: First, as stated before check with other companies in your business. Who did they use? What did they like or dislike? Have they seen inconsistencies between auditors from the same registrar (one auditor passes it and praises it and the next auditor finds fault with it)? Who was their auditor specifically?

In the results of your checks you want to try to get more than one opinion on the same registrar but you also want to try to make sure that more than one auditor is included so you can see if the opinion is based on the personality of one auditor versus more from the same registrar.

I would be careful about shying away from a registrar just because of one bad opinion of one auditor. Sometimes we all have a bad hair day so it could have been a one time thing. If you are leaning toward a particular registrar check out their web site if they have one. Most have some of their clients listed so contact one or two additional ones from the list and see what the reports from them are like.

You should also rate the response time from the registrar and the way they treat you on the initial and any subsequent calls. Do you stay on hold for long periods of time? Does it take them minutes, hours, or days to get back to you with information and answers? Years ago I sent a questionnaire to a number of registrars when I was trying to make a decision for the company I worked for. I was surprised at how many who would not fill out my questionnaire just sent a canned package or who wanted me to pay money before they would do anything. Yet I am sure in audits, the auditors want you to get your questionnaires back from your suppliers and potential suppliers. They are a supplier too! Send your potential supplier questionnaire and see what your response is.

In a discussion with a client of mine today, she asked: " Don't they have to live up to the same requirements they audit us for? I sure think they should be treated the same as any other potential supplier and if they can't respond then they should not be in the business. I sure won't use them.

If you are on aol and go to keyword PNENT or anyone of a number of other sites you will find sites which links to a large number of the registrars. Also Asq has a link I believe as well.

posted 24 June 1999 11:15 AM               

Hmmmm... very interesting. For our initial assessment we picked what we felt were 8 of the most highly recognized names with the best reputations.

We settled on choosing between BSI or TUV America. The choice was NOT based upon price, that is not a smart way to choose something as important as a registrar.

In any event, we chose TUV America and have had a wonderful experience for 3 full years. I would highly recommend them to anybody.

HOWEVER, we just transferred our certification to BSI for a variety of reasons this year. They include:

1) Flat rate for audits. NO travel fees, no associated expenses, and so on. One price. It pained us to switch from TUV but the cost savings was significant. At the end of 3 years with TUV you have a full-blown recert audit, which you do not have with BSI.
2) Availability of auditors close to home.
3) More in-line with future strategic plans... most of our automotive customers are registered using BSI (we thought it would look good), and also future initiatives including our upgrade to QS-9000 and EN46000. We felt that, at this time, they were in a better position to serve us going forward.

We JUST had our surveillance audit with BSI and had a wonderful experience. They are just as open-minded and helpful as TUV America. They definitely have a cooperative mindset - a "joint venture" if you will. It helped to convince us that we made the correct decision regarding the transfer.

We used NSAI at our Ireland facility. Our staff there had only the best to say about NSAI.

What I have heard about others:

1) DNV - reputable, cooperative, good choice.
2) UL - Stay away. The most consistent complaint that I have heard (especially with regard to ISO) is that their auditors "read" more into the Standard than is there. They are narrowminded and less flexible than others when interpreting what is REQUIRED.
3) Perry Johnson - I personally don't like them because they badger me with cold-calls and deluge me in faxes for auditing, training, and all of the other stuff that they do.

My recommendation... stay with the big names. We have had wonderful personal experiences with TUV America, British Standards Institution (BSI), and NSAI. I assure you that you could pick any of the above and do well for yourself.

posted 24 June 1999 11:54 AM               

I've discovered, through conversations and resume submittals, that a majority of the registrars don't really want the most "qualified" people on their audit teams. They seem to want the folks that look best on paper.

I'm a new 14000 auditor (RAB Provisional). I'm a Provisional Auditor because I don't have any experiance auditing under an EMS standard. I do have over nine years of compliance auditing (inspecting) under California EPA requirements and about 2 years as an Internal 9000 auditor. I took a 14000 Lead Auditors course and got certified by the RAB. I hold 2 other professional credential in the environmental field (one granted by the state of California). But now I am being told I am not qualified to do audits. even on a contract basis.

A good many of the 14000 LA's cherished by the registrars could not go through the same process I just finished because they are not the environmental professionals the standard (14012) recommends. They may have the auditing background, but thats it. Quite honestly, I believe most of them may not even know what they are looking at.

posted 24 June 1999 12:48 PM               

I've discovered, through conversations and resume submittals, that a majority of the registrars don't really want the most "qualified" people on their audit teams. They seem to want the folks that look best on paper.

I'm a new 14000 auditor (RAB Provisional). I'm a Provisional Auditor because I don't have any experiance auditing under an EMS standard. I do have over nine years of compliance auditing (inspecting) under California EPA requirements and about 2 years as an Internal 9000 auditor. I took a 14000 Lead Auditors course and got certified by the RAB. I hold 2 other professional credential in the environmental field (one granted by the state of California). But now I am being told I am not qualified to do audits. even on a contract basis.

A good many of the 14000 LA's cherished by the registrars could not go through the same process I just finished because they are not the environmental professionals the standard (14012) recommends. They may have the auditing background, but thats it. Quite honestly, I believe most of them may not even know what they are looking at.

posted 21 October 1999 01:36 PM               

------------------
David A. Guffey, CQE, CQA, CQMgr
Director of Quality Assurance
Great Lakes Metal Stamping, Inc.
4607 Rambo Road
Bridgman MI 49106
616-465-4415
616-465-0805 (Fax)
dguffey@GLAKESMETALSTAMPING.COM

posted 03 May 2000 06:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mac@home:

Does anyone have anything good to say about them, or at least a few more recent tales of woe?

---

posted 04 May 2000 10:33 AM               

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.

posted 01 June 2000 11:38 PM               

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.

posted 02 June 2000 10:33 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by isodog:
[B]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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

The problem I have with UL is they do not seem interested in companies with less than 500 employees.

---

posted 02 June 2000 12:18 PM               

ISO-9001 = DNV Very good all around.

VDA 6.1 = TUV Very poor auditors in Europe

posted 06 June 2000 09:58 AM               

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.

posted 19 June 2000 11:08 AM               

We could not use Perry Johnson. I like many others do not like the cold phone calls or their impression of other registrars.