Choosing a Registrar - Registrar Recommendations

[Wallybaloo]

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.

 

[isodog]

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I have personal knowledge they have withdrawn from a company where the Management Rep.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

 

[Marc]

Originally posted by isodog:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[Randy]

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.

 

[Chris W]

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!

 

[BWoods]

My Experience:

ISO-9001 = DNV Very good all around.

VDA 6.1 = TUV Very poor auditors in Europe

 

[Don Reid]

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.

 

[Sam]

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.

 

[Oscar]

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.

------------------
Oscar

 

[Daniel J. Rupright]

Underwriters Labratories