posted 19 September 1999 06:25 AM               

I know of no regulation which addresses this issue.

I do not see this as comparable to a financial audit. A company typically has a pretty stable system if they've been registered for a few years. (Stable is up for definition, I agree). For example, TRW just took over LucasVerity (bought, whatever). While Lucas is now part of TRW, it will be keeping within its defined quality / manufacturing systems for quite a while as a gradual evolution is put into place. So even if a takeover (buy-out, whatever) is under way, unlike many company financial systems, most manufacturing systems will remain relatively stable.

I personally see where I would accept such a switch over with evidence based upon the company's audit schedule. Let's say a company is on a 6 month schedule with its registrar and is audited in January and July. They go through their July audit and decide to switch registrars - which happens in September.

The question is can the new registrar issue a certificate without visiting which is good through the remainder of the 6 month cycle. Risk factors considered, I (personally) would not see this as a problem. ISO9001 is not what it was even 5 years ago. I have been in companies which carried a current certificate which were blatantly outside the bounds of the requirements - I would have taken their cert away. This is particularly true with multi nationals which have many facilities and (my opinion) they really 'take it easy on' clients in order to keep the business. So - I feel if a company is midstream (has been registered for a couple of years) and can submit a years worth of audits (and related info) to show things are going well, issuing a certificate good until the January audit (from our example) would be a low risk.

However, I do not know what the convention is and I agree it is unprofessional. I will say business is more 'competitive' than in years past and I expect it to continue. Heck - Microsoft gave away (can you say FREE!) software (Explorer) in an attempt to crush a prospective competitor (Netscape). Ethics and professionalism are in the eye of the beholder more than ever before. 20 years ago in the US doctors did not advertise - as I remember (I could be wrong here) the AMA forbade advertising at one time. Slowly the 'professionalism' of some doctors eroded and doctors started advertising. Now it's very common place. Just like you, many doctors took this as an attack or raid on their 'customers' - many doctors still see advertising as unprofessional. Maybe they're right.

Maybe some of those who visit here who are closer to a registrar relationship can give their 2 cents worth.