|
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 Elsmar Cove Forums
 Registrars and Registration
 The 40 Day 'Wonder' Implementation
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: The 40 Day 'Wonder' Implementation |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4367 |
posted 15 July 2001 07:01 AM
   
These folks recently SPAMMED the quality NG with the following. Any comments, folks? ****************************************** From: "Chris parris" oxebridge@hotmail.com Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 04:56:55 GMT Get ISO 9001 registered in as little as 40 days, with no pre-existing --- Registrar of YOUR choice (no conflict of interest.) My proprietary "Rapid ISO Implementation Program" was designed by experienced ISO Administrators, not "consultants," and presents real-world implementation strategies without unnecessary documentation, calibration, or burdensome meetings. Our Implementation Specialists are not consultants, but RAB-certified registrar auditors, with real world, "in-the-trenches" experience, that brings both the views of auditor and auditee to bear on the process. You provide the commitment to quality; we'll do the rest. IP: Logged |
|
Al Dyer Forum Wizard Posts: 814 |
posted 15 July 2001 07:12 AM
Maybe they are a new branch of PJ! IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4367 |
posted 15 July 2001 07:23 AM
Among other things there are records requirements. I think these are folks who tell you to hire them technically as 'contract' personnel. They provide a person who serves as Management Rep through the audit. I think another one of the 'tricks' is a management review meeting at the start of the project - which gets a start on that requirement. I guess what really gets me is the 40 day statement. Few companies with no pre-existing quality system is going to have enough history to show the systems are effective. I have seen companies where a registration audit was possible in 40 days but they had systems in place already. They are aggressive marketers, and, like PJ, the marketing is probably highly effective. IP: Logged |
|
Al Dyer Forum Wizard Posts: 814 |
posted 15 July 2001 08:23 AM
I think there are many companies out there who have existing quality systems that are compatible with either ISO or QS. These companies are in a good position to become certified at any moment they choose, but for whatever reason have not elected to do so. I think companies like this already have the committment to stable and progressive manufacturing systems and would elect to use a registration company with a proven track record of honesty and integrity. You get what you pay for. ASD... IP: Logged |
|
Graeme Forum Contributor Posts: 58 |
posted 15 July 2001 10:27 PM
It might be possible in a small organization where every single person is 125% committed to the goal. Not otherwise, IMHO. And beyond the initial registration, what is their success rate for surveillance audits? Their web site appears to be down right now (Sunday evening). Maybe it's swamped by the thundering demand? [This message has been edited by Graeme (edited 15 July 2001).] IP: Logged |
|
Ross Simpson Forum Contributor Posts: 13 |
posted 16 July 2001 12:39 PM
Sounds a lot like PJ. I think that most registrars want at least three months records prior to audit. Anybody who buys a pkg. like this is asking for trouble. BUT........Here's a better one ! There's a company in the UK that, for only 500 Lbs, will give you a cert! Just fill in a form, stating that you have a manual, have done at least one internal audit, send the money and PRESTO ! You're certified! WHat a scam. Just don't get caught by ANSI/RAB or some other REAL organization. I don't know the name of this company, but I'm sure if there's one, there's more. Best do the required work with a reputable registrar. IP: Logged |
|
DICKIE Forum Contributor Posts: 58 |
posted 16 July 2001 03:50 PM
I wouldn't go anywhere near those people. Unless It's some mom and pop shop with 3 employees it's impossible. How could you write procedures and everything, much less have internal audit evidence. On second thought if you were making snow-kones I guess you could do It. Greg IP: Logged |
|
D.Scott Forum Contributor Posts: 53 |
posted 17 July 2001 07:09 AM
My memory is not what it used to be but I seem to remember an interpretation by IASG on QS-9000 which stated that an applicant company could be audited and approved based on evidence that the documented quality system was in place. The effectiveness of the system could be demonstrated in surveillance audits. If this were true, wouldn't a pre-packaged system with evidence of management participation (along with a few other smoke screens) be able to squeeze through this crack? Just a thought but I know there are a lot of disgruntled auditors out there who could not pass the upgrade. Could it be that some of them have pooled all the "tricks" and are pushing the limits of the system? As for "buying" a certificate, the same goes on right here in the good old USA. When we were scouting registrars one of them (mentioned earlier in this string but I won't say who)came right out and asked where we would like to hang the certificate. I am not surprised that this new service has started. If there is a way to make a buck, somebody will do it. Watch for the "Shortcut Registration Accreditation Board" opening next month. Dave IP: Logged |
|
Ross Simpson Forum Contributor Posts: 13 |
posted 17 July 2001 12:20 PM
I agree with Greg.Maybe a two person operation, making die punched washers could get by with it, but even then I have my doubts. Just noticed in the first post what may be the key phrase:"in as little as 40 days".Should add "MAY take a little longer, depending on HOW BIG YOU ARE!" Still haven't been able to get their web site. Jeez, maybe somebody caught onto them. Think I'll stick with the one I've got. Later.........Ross IP: Logged |
|
Alf Gulford Forum Contributor Posts: 73 |
posted 17 July 2001 03:52 PM
The site is open now. While I didn't (and won't) spend too much time looking through it, I did note that they claim companies with up to 150 employees (and even some 300 employee companies) qualify for the 40 day program. Interesting, but not very. Alf IP: Logged |
|
energy Forum Contributor Posts: 308 |
posted 17 July 2001 04:26 PM
What's the problem? It says, "However, a true estimate of implementation time must be determined via an on-site audit (see our free audit offer). Secondly, many registrars will not perform an audit on a company whose Quality System is not at least 12 weeks mature, and the entire implementation process is dependent on the company's level of management commitment. OQR makes no guarantees of a client's ability to pass registration audits! Beware consultants who do make that claim." That's their out! Just a great come on. No guarantees. And the entire implementation is dependent on Management's commitment. Nothing new. [This message has been edited by energy (edited 17 July 2001).] IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4367 |
posted 10 August 2001 04:07 AM
And here is the latest from the front: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ For those of you who might be interested, I place the following into the public domain of this NG and the internet as a whole. It is quite obvious the guy is a bit of a wingnut and I had not planned to post this partial exchange of e-mails. However, it seems Christopher has chosen to write e-mails to many Elsmar Cove forum members. These e-mails to forum members are, of course, more of his advertising and rhetoric. Christopher took up this cause before - last year as I remember - when he initiated a brief hate campaign against my following the common practice of repeating interesting news group postings in the Elsmar Cove forums as if the News Groups are somehow copyright protected and as if fair use doesn't exist. I do this to promote discussion on topics I believe are important. Many, many sites do this same thing. For almost 6 years the Elsmar Cove has been helping people for free in quality assurance issues through the Elsmar Cove public forums. I have spent thousands of dollars and thousands of hours of my time in order to help keep people informed at no cost to them. Several forum members wrote me and attached copies of the advertisement Christopher sent them. As is obvious, he got the e-mail addresses from The Elsmar Cove. I personally don't see this as a big issue but then again some others might. If you read through, my complaint is based mainly on 3 issues: 1. Christopher SPAMs the NG - Well, we've all gotten used to him doing that so it's not a 'giant sized' issue. 2. He categorizes consultants and depreciates us as if he him self is not a consultant - which he most surely is by definition. This really does get my goat, so to speak. Like the pot calling the kettle black. I have to admit, this really pisses me off. 3. His advertisement copy is misleading and deceptive to say the least. The '40 day' plan is admittedly not impossible for SOME companies, but for most companies it is a pipe dream. My pappa used to tell me "If it seems too good to be true, it usually is. Make decisions carefully." Unfortunately, as we all know, some folks just can't get it through their heads that buying more magazine subscriptions does not give you a statistically better chance at winning the Publishers Clearinghouse Sweepstakes drawing. Christopher's miracle '40 day plan' has been discussed before at some length. One such recent discussion (which was prompted by Christopher's SPAMMING the NG) is at: Whether or not Christopher is 'happy' about others discussing his '40 day plan' is of no concern to me. Nor do I feel it requisite to notify everyone and every company which we discuss that they are, in fact, being discussed. That's simply silly. In the discussion linked to above you will note that it was started as, and continues as, a discussion of Christopher's 40 day Wonder 'program'. It is not, as he stated in so many words, a controlled attack on his imnplementation methodology. Rather, it was and is a discussion of it. It is obvious Christopher does not like such discussion unless HE can CONTROL the discussion any more than politicians want details of their programs and meetings revealed, not to mention their 'youthful indiscretions'. It makes it difficult when someone challenges your claims and all the IFs and conditions are pointed out. When people find out the details the smoke and mirrors fade away and the essence is laid bare. At one point Christopher states: Gee... We're all bottom feeders. Maybe there's a law somewhere.... If you peruse his advertisement and his e-mails herein, I believe you will see who the anti-Christ is. Christopher went to the forums, copied peoples e-mail addresses of readers and sends them each his advertising and hate e-mails. This is from his 'propaganda base' sent to many forum members: -> I am not about to add further credence to Cayman's Let me first start out by again saying read the discussion thread. His claims were posted, including a link to his site. From there people made their own comments about Christopher's company's claims. I don't call this "controlled criticism'. And - Robbing NG posts? Come on, now, really. As if NGs are not public domain. Forum members know I scour NGs, ListServes, news postings and many other resources for interesting topics to bring to light for discussion. Is this my nefarious method of building my sites 'hits'? Well, I guess everyone can have a conspiracy theory. We at the Cove try to keep up with what's new. With what's happening. And what's interesting. I do this because I care. I believe in vigorous discussion. After almost 6 years on the internet I am well past the stage where 'hits' were impotant. People come to the Cove, including the forums, for information and help. And we're there for them. At this point I will end my narrative and let the e-mail exchanges speak for them selves. **************************** Received: from hotmail.com (oe57.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.16.192]) by Elsmar.com (8.11.2) id f78LY2442585; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 15:34:02 -0600 (MDT) Marc: I currently contract as an RAB certified registration auditor with at least two registrars of Cayman clients. I have already had to recuse myself from registration audits of these clients because of our previous interactions. The conflict of interest extends to any public comments I might make on your clients' consultant (that is, Cayman), so cannot respond to your post. I am sure that you understand this is to abide by our profession's (and the RAB's) ethical guidelines. Rest assured, I will NOT audit a Cayman client. As for my post, sorry I can't fulfill your desire for a fight. Let the folks on the newsgroup think you won. If you'd like to chat about this, feel free to call me at 863-651-3750. Please do not reprint this private correspondence on your site or elsewhere; this was written for your eyes only. Christopher Paris Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 08:53:17 -0400 On 8/8/01 5:33 PM, Christopher Paris at oxebridge@hotmail.com wrote: > Marc: Simply silly. I don't like UL because it's stringent but I'll prepare a client for them. I see no reason for you to preclude yourself from any of my clients registration or surveillance audits simply because there are areas we personally disagree on. I see absolutely no conflict of interest there. > The conflict of interest extends to any public comments I might make on your So far, almost to a client, every registration audit has brought unsolicited positive comments from the auditors including "...you really got your money's worth..." The last registrar pulled me aside after the audit when we were at our cars leaving and told me how impressed he was with what I had done for the client. He wanted to discuss my implementation methodologies. I wouldn't expect you to comment negatively without a reason and evidence. Since I have never had a client even come close to failing an audit, I'm not sure there's much you could say except that maybe you 'personally' might have done something differently. If you were to audit one of my clients I would expect you to assess them on their systems and compliance - not on who helped them. > I am sure that you understand this is to abide by our profession's I have no idea why not. You're supposed to be auditing them, not me. As an auditor, I would assume you would not savage a company during an audit simply because I helped them through their implementation. I would be more than happy for you, or any other auditor, to audit any of my clients - past, present or future. Raising the 'ethics' issue is a red herring and you know it. > As for my post, sorry I can't fulfill your desire for a fight. Let the It's not 'a fight'. Nor is it a matter of win or loose. It's a matter of sticking with facts and not name calling. It's a matter of being honest. I personally responded to your NG post because I get tired of hearing one consultant tell folks other consultants are assholes - but that you are different, that you're not a consultant. What you say may be good advertising copy, but it's not accurate and it's inflammatory. As I said, there are a number of threads on NGs and BBSs about your advertisement. Few say a 40 day 'implementation' is impossible (and I agree) - IF---- and a litany of IFs follows. Most simply laugh as we all know the typical company will not be 'eligible' for the 40 day program. Most are, shall we say, disappointed that you denigrate consultants as you do. > If you'd like to chat about this, Bottom line is if you slam consultants you should be ready to be slammed right back. Regards! Marc T. Smith Teleco: 513 777-3394 ************************************************** From: Bill Marc, I guess you put a burr under his saddle. As for the remark regarding "Cayman Business Systems does not sell, give away or in any way reveal/communicate any information about anything to any person, any company or any other entity inclusive of log files, e-mail addresses and cookie information." "If that were true, I wouldn't be writing you right now.", I say who cares? He could have sent this to me using the e-mail function in the Cove. It doesn't matter. Profiles are posted, e-mails provided, voluntarily, with issues of confidentiality a non issue. Go for him, as only you know how. What a gas! Bill -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Paris [mailto:OQR@qs9000.com] I am not about to add further credence to Cayman's ill-advised practice of robbing newsgroup posts to build its site content, and failing to notify the original authors. Only by a thorough search did I happen to find his latest thread, criticizing my company under very controlled conditions. This is certainly not a criticism of the contributors, just the methods of its moderator. Anyone interested in details of 40-Day Implementations email me directly . I would be glad to talk about Rapid implementations, not from a sales or marketing aspect, but to answer your specific questions. There are no "secret tricks." I can tell you I am honestly and totally astounded that it would take any consultant MORE than 40 days to implement ISO 9000, and might have a few questions of my own for you. You may also wish to review Cayman's published privacy policy against its practice: "Cayman Business Systems does not sell, give away or in any way reveal / communicate any information about anything to any person, any company or any other entity inclusive of log files, e-mail addresses and cookie information." If that were true, I wouldn't be writing you right now. Christopher Paris This is a private communication, not to be reposted in any public forum without the author's approval. Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 13:46:40 -0400 Well, he's written me twice - I responded once. Shall we say BIG BURR in the ol' saddle! I had no idea he responded to you as well! -> "Cayman Business Systems does not sell, give away or in This is basically true in the case of e-mails - there are a lot floating around but that's pretty much routine and they are not used for tracking or sold or anything. But yeah - he's being a pompous ass as far as I'm concerned. Not to mention that, like is so often done in politics and the news, Christopher cites one part of the Cove privacy policy ( /entry2.html at the bottom of the page), takes it out of context and - well, you've seen it before so..... It's like listening to Rush. I honestly wanted to piss him off and I told him why. I do not like fools like him berating consultants when he himself is one. His SPAMMING the NG is not surprising - he does it now and again. But like I say - he uses "fightin' words" in his advertisement copy. I'd shut up if he didn't use such bullshit in his SPAM. Our exchange went like this (my reply to his first e-mail - which, of course, includes his original text to me): ********************* For reasons only known to you, you've personalized the debate. You take my criticisms of consultants as a whole as a personal insult, and respond with personal attacks, accusations, false quotes, intentional misinterpretations and (worse still) vulgarity. You have consistently and publicly represented me personally as a liar, with the direct intent to dissuade companies from using me personally; that is quite a different tack to take then pointing out deficiencies in an industry, and the legality of that tack is in question. You have subsequently insulted all of our's current clients in the process. And you blithely drop your own clients' names while doing it, which is an inexcusable ethical error. Not sure why you aren't aware of the professional ethics guidelines, but I am. Your clients are better for it. Your behaviour on the newsgroup, your website and in business only solidify my opinion of traditional consultants as bottom-feeders who have to pick fights to gain clients. That's not what my company is about, and exactly the reason I distance myself from your ilk. You'll note, however, that I give you the respect not to publicly air my opinion of you personally, which is why (again) I disallow you from reposting this private email in any forum. Does this mean I won't market or contribute on the newsgroup? Not at all. In fact, I appreciate that your posts satisfy two major needs for me: (1) they drive hits to my site, and (2) they prove my point about consultants. But I could do without the libel. As for any threads regarding our's programs, I only contribute to that single newsgroup. If you have transported them again to your own commercial forum in order to boost your site's content & traffic, and to criticize my company & clients behind their backs, you have not (again) notified me as per my previous request. And that's *exactly* the kind of behaviour that (thankfully) separates folks like you and myself. ******************************************* From: Bill Marc, It appears that this individual has a lot of free time on his hands to spend it festering, sending e-mails to you, and now, Cove participants. If you do decide to respond, please mention that a few of the Cove participants aren't too happy with his unsolicited e-mail about topics that they could care less about(I'm sure you will get more). In fact, the very tone of his message is childlike, very unprofessional, personal in nature and what I consider a waste of my valuable time and his. Additionally, you can post this, if you choose, as an example. After all, I didn't post his message to a public forum as "warned" about. As for his instructions to me about that very thing, I'll send them anywhere I choose. I don't work for him and intrusion into my workplace and personal e-mail is what I consider "unethical" practices. So there! Bill -----Original Message----- -> "Cayman Business Systems does not sell, give away or in This is basically true in the case of e-mails - there are a lot floating around but that's pretty much routine and not used for tracking or sold or anything. But yeah - he's being a pompous ass as far as I'm concerned. I honestly wanted to piss him off and I told him why. I do not like fools like him berating consultants when he himself is one. His SPAMMING the NG is not surprising - he does it now and again. But like I say - he uses "fightin' words" in his advertisement copy. I'd shut up if he didn't use such bullshit in his SPAM. Our exchange went like this (my reply to his first e-mail - which, of course, includes his original text to me): ********************* Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 14:27:06 -0400 I'm going to wait it out for a bit and enjoy. I'm working on the web site and - well, half fun and half work. It's pretty much a hobby as anything else. I agree with your evaluation of the discourse which has passed and of your evaluation of his 'personality'. So it goes. I don't know that I'll post it because it took on a lot of anger and hate. I'm not sure it would benefit anything or anyone. I pretty much believe people with minds see through the facade he presents. The rest buy the National Enquirer and/ or People at the grocery and watch FOX newstainment. And they believe it all. I don't worry about them. I'd be up nights if I did. Thanks for the comments! Always nice to know one is not alone in the boat, *************************** Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 12:06:33 -0700 (PDT) Christopher, I wish I knew what you were talking about. By the way, what company do you represent? Sounds like P.J. Elsmar Cove is just a group of people, some new and some professionals that try to help juggle the specifics of the different quality systems. Anything that is posted is posted by members and people trying to untangle the regulations. ASD... | I am not about to add further credence to Cayman's ill-advised practice ************************************* So folks, that's the scoop. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Regards! Marc T. Smith Teleco: 513 777-3394 This message is NOT a PRIVILEGED AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL communication. No e-mail is.... Whether or not you are the intended recipient, you and I both know you can read, copy, or use it, and disclose it to anyone you like. You can post it on the internet or in any public forum or venue in any format, including, but not limited to, electronic, internet, print, or photocopy, on your local grocery store public postings board or anywhere else. To think an e-mail is anything otherwise is silly wishful thinking only a lawyer or a fool would expect. If you have something to hide from the public, I suggest you consider another method of communication. But remember - Even a FAX can be easily intercepted. IP: Logged |
|
Randy Forum Wizard Posts: 264 |
posted 10 August 2001 08:31 AM
After reading this dudes tripe I'm glad UL didn't think I was qualified to be a 14000 Auditor for them. 40 days may be adequate for some small mom & pop company, but large corp's can take longer than that to just do the awareness training for all employees. Randy IP: Logged |
|
Michael T Forum Contributor Posts: 43 |
posted 10 August 2001 10:37 AM
Welllll... that was fun reading... *laff* Good distraction for a Friday morning. 40 days, huh? I've spent more than 40 days simply thinking about how to approach implementing just one element of the ISO standard (Design & Development) trying to get our shop ready for the 2000 upgrade. Oh sure -- I could go out and get a canned package and just "insert your company name here", and perhaps be done in 40 days. But what's the point? If ISO is to be a living, working part of the quality management system, it needs to be implemented using current work practices and adapting those, and the standard to an integrated fit. There would be no buy-in, no sense of ownership, if I were to go the "canned" route. As far as consultants go... those that I know and have known, are by and large, some of the most knowledgeable and ethical individuals I have met. They have to be. Their careers are built on their reputation and their ability. Sure, I'll admit that there are those out there who are less than scrupulous - but then - they don't last, do they? Anyway, JMHO.... Cheers!!! Mike IP: Logged |
|
Ross Simpson Forum Contributor Posts: 13 |
posted 10 August 2001 12:01 PM
All: I, too, have received e-mail from Mr. Paris. My comments: "Christopher, butt out. Go do your advertising elsewhere and leave The Elsmar Cove to the people who use them as they were ment to be used, I.E. Discussion and information of QMS/EMS.If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say anything. Just don't degrade and slam people who are pretty dammed good at what they do, myself included (three degrees, four professional certs, thirty-five years quality mgmt., nine companies ISO certified in past ten years, this present one multi-site,five world wide). Having read your garbage, I refuse to lower myself in any further discourse in any form.I believe you should do the same". Venting over, let's get on with the show. Marc, please keep up the good work. Ross Simpson IP: Logged |
|
E Wall Forum Contributor Posts: 114 |
posted 10 August 2001 02:59 PM
You've all addressed the professional side so no need to add more to it...just, ECHO, ECHO, ECHO! On another note...Does this guy not have a clue that mail (in any form) is the property of the recipient not the sender? If he doesn't want it spread around he shouldn't write it or communicate it in manner! Marc, I applaud your perserverance and suggest we all just ignore him! (imagine what a tizzy that will put him in) IP: Logged |
All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Please Visit the new Elsmar Cove Forums! All these threads are there and much more!
Main Site Search 
Looking up the domain name in the Internet "whois" service reveals name, address and phone numbers for those who really want to know. (