A
Auditor Certification III - Auditor Certification - IRCA/RAB lead auditor cours
A
Al Dyer
Marc,
To paraphrase a statement from the Beatles, Did I pass the audition? (NCR)
Have a good Sunday!
ASD...
To paraphrase a statement from the Beatles, Did I pass the audition? (NCR)
Have a good Sunday!
ASD...
barb butrym
Quite Involved in Discussions
Hmmmmmm what does one gain from being RAB/IRCA certified? 8 out of 10 registrars just require you can pass the exam...surprised? thats cause they like to train you to do it their way !!!! then they bring you through the registration process. its called networking.......
C
Carl
Barb,
You wrote:
"Hmmmmmm what does one gain from being RAB/IRCA certified? 8 out of 10 registrars just require you can pass the exam...
Surely you are not suggesting that passing the exam makes you certified, right?
Networking? Sounds more like the "Good old boy" network.
It has been my experience that the registrars do not interpret the standard consistently within thier own ranks, much less registrar to registrar. There is a LOT of subjectivity.
No thanks, I'll pass on any more training that involves "Their way".
Just out of curiosity, What do the other 2 registrars require?
Carl-
You wrote:
"Hmmmmmm what does one gain from being RAB/IRCA certified? 8 out of 10 registrars just require you can pass the exam...
Surely you are not suggesting that passing the exam makes you certified, right?
Networking? Sounds more like the "Good old boy" network.
It has been my experience that the registrars do not interpret the standard consistently within thier own ranks, much less registrar to registrar. There is a LOT of subjectivity.
No thanks, I'll pass on any more training that involves "Their way".
Just out of curiosity, What do the other 2 registrars require?
Carl-
G
Greenraisin
Good topic! I think someone mentioned it earlier, but in summary, to be certified is a foot in the door. I have been auditing for a number of years and have found that to be effective, I must adapt my auditing style to the subject and management at hand. Certification or examination does not prepare you for that. The bureaucracy of "audit standards" is just that and we all have feelings about bureaucracy!
Not taking shots at anyone, I know a lot of certified people who couldn't apply what they know except in a purely academic setting. I also know some non-certified folks who provide an invaluable service. The strength is NOT in the certification. The strength is in the ability to provide a service to the customer which results in the customer's improvement to their business. One could argue that an auditor must be completely objective and not do anything but state the facts. (Certs and Exams require this, as does ISO10011). I think that's a good basis for auditing, but I contend that if the auditor doesn't ensure that the auditee understands the "objective facts", the audit is less than productive. In other words, if you don't understand the needs of your customer, you're not going to meet them, unless by accident. You can present factual findings all day long, but if the facts are not understood, the results are going to be a generation of "busy work reaction" or total ignorance of the issues. Yes, the customer should understand the standards and the QS employed. No, they usually don't!
Sorry for the rambling. I guess my bottom line is, it is more important to have an educated management which understands the standards and what it means to be compliant than it is to have a "certified" auditor. A good auditor is important, don't get me wrong. Mangagement needs to know what's wrong. My point is that a good auditor will make sure the customer understands what's wrong, why it's wrong, and why it's important to be compliant. I realize that this goes against the grain of auditor training, and I also support the objectivity of the auditor. I also will continue to advocate that a good auditor, wanting to generate a good product which will support continuous improvement, will need to understand the business to a degree and thus have the ability to assess the applicability of the QS to support the business, not just as a "meeting of standards or regulatory requirements." My experience tells me that auditors and management deal with the bureaucracy while the people who do the work go about doing it the way they always have, and, in most cases, the most efficient way! Just like us auditors!
Have a great day!
------------------
See you down life's highway!
Eric
[This message has been edited by Greenraisin (edited 16 April 2001).]
Not taking shots at anyone, I know a lot of certified people who couldn't apply what they know except in a purely academic setting. I also know some non-certified folks who provide an invaluable service. The strength is NOT in the certification. The strength is in the ability to provide a service to the customer which results in the customer's improvement to their business. One could argue that an auditor must be completely objective and not do anything but state the facts. (Certs and Exams require this, as does ISO10011). I think that's a good basis for auditing, but I contend that if the auditor doesn't ensure that the auditee understands the "objective facts", the audit is less than productive. In other words, if you don't understand the needs of your customer, you're not going to meet them, unless by accident. You can present factual findings all day long, but if the facts are not understood, the results are going to be a generation of "busy work reaction" or total ignorance of the issues. Yes, the customer should understand the standards and the QS employed. No, they usually don't!
Sorry for the rambling. I guess my bottom line is, it is more important to have an educated management which understands the standards and what it means to be compliant than it is to have a "certified" auditor. A good auditor is important, don't get me wrong. Mangagement needs to know what's wrong. My point is that a good auditor will make sure the customer understands what's wrong, why it's wrong, and why it's important to be compliant. I realize that this goes against the grain of auditor training, and I also support the objectivity of the auditor. I also will continue to advocate that a good auditor, wanting to generate a good product which will support continuous improvement, will need to understand the business to a degree and thus have the ability to assess the applicability of the QS to support the business, not just as a "meeting of standards or regulatory requirements." My experience tells me that auditors and management deal with the bureaucracy while the people who do the work go about doing it the way they always have, and, in most cases, the most efficient way! Just like us auditors!
Have a great day!
------------------
See you down life's highway!
Eric
[This message has been edited by Greenraisin (edited 16 April 2001).]
K
Ken K
On one hand, a very interesting dicussion. On the other hand, somewhat disheartening.
After getting halfway through part II, I kept hearing the immortal words of Howard Cosell..."down goes Frazier...down goes Frazier."
I thought us quality people were more mild mannered. Show's what I know!
After getting halfway through part II, I kept hearing the immortal words of Howard Cosell..."down goes Frazier...down goes Frazier."
I thought us quality people were more mild mannered. Show's what I know!
A
Art
I have been reading this with some interest. I really dont think RAB registation/certification means very much. I have knon some registars who's auditors never find problems. It seems as if they come and collect their money and go until the next 6 month audit.
Actually I have spoken with a couple of Quality Managers who have told me the same story. Sad as it may be it appears to be the truth.
Well there is my two cents.
Thanks, Art
Actually I have spoken with a couple of Quality Managers who have told me the same story. Sad as it may be it appears to be the truth.
Well there is my two cents.
Thanks, Art
Similar threads
