I
isolytica1
is International Accreditation Board of Bristol, UK a legitimate registrar?
B
Boingo-boingo
They are not a registrar, but an (apparently self-appointed) accreditation body. Registrar is synonymous with certification bodies.
If you equate AB legitimacy with being a member of the IAF, then, no they are not "legitimate". But, on the other hand, they can be even more serious than UKAS, the long standing UK accreditation body. How could we know?
I have my opinions, but, for the time being, I will keep it to myself. Maybe some of the UK based covers can opine.
If you equate AB legitimacy with being a member of the IAF, then, no they are not "legitimate". But, on the other hand, they can be even more serious than UKAS, the long standing UK accreditation body. How could we know?
I have my opinions, but, for the time being, I will keep it to myself. Maybe some of the UK based covers can opine.
Re: New website for AIAO-BAR - Unaccredited Accreditation Body
It's only speculation on my part, but, since they claim doing ISO 9000 is "say what you do..." and also they make no mention of ensuring a CB adhere's to ISO/IEC 17021, they may not be operating to recognized norms...
It's only speculation on my part, but, since they claim doing ISO 9000 is "say what you do..." and also they make no mention of ensuring a CB adhere's to ISO/IEC 17021, they may not be operating to recognized norms...
I
isolytica1
Re: New website for AIAO-BAR - Unaccredited Accreditation Body
yes meant AB not registrar, brain not engaged before typing. thanks for the reply.
yes meant AB not registrar, brain not engaged before typing. thanks for the reply.
All,
I audited a supplier who happily showed me their ISO9001 cert, what rang alarm bells was the cert was issued in 2011 & expired in 2021???
The assessment body is CQS (Certified quality systems) who are accredited by IAB, I rang CQS who said next time they visit this supplier they will issue a 3 year cert (very fishy). This is the 1st time I have seen a none UKAS accredited assessment body for a UK based company.
Can anyone explain what if any the difference in assessment is when the assessor is not UKAS?
It also raises the question when a foreign supplier submits their ISO cert as part of the supplier approval process is there assessment like for like to a UKAS assessment & how can you tell?
Dave
I audited a supplier who happily showed me their ISO9001 cert, what rang alarm bells was the cert was issued in 2011 & expired in 2021???
The assessment body is CQS (Certified quality systems) who are accredited by IAB, I rang CQS who said next time they visit this supplier they will issue a 3 year cert (very fishy). This is the 1st time I have seen a none UKAS accredited assessment body for a UK based company.
Can anyone explain what if any the difference in assessment is when the assessor is not UKAS?
It also raises the question when a foreign supplier submits their ISO cert as part of the supplier approval process is there assessment like for like to a UKAS assessment & how can you tell?
Dave
R
Reg Morrison
Dave, when a certification body perform their duties under an IAF-signatory accreditation scheme, such as UKAS, they have to follow certain protocols (IN THEORY), mandated by documents such as ISO 17021 and rules dictated by the accreditation body. I said "in theory" because even within the realm of "properly accredited" registrars, there is TREMENDOUS variation and, not always the registrars satisfy the requirements imposed onto them.
Outside of the IAF accredited scheme, is a free-for-all, anything-goes, drive-by certification, audit by tweeter, pay-here-download-certificate, etc....there is no confidence whatsoever about the credibility of the certificate, because the accreditation body is not accountable to anyone.
I
isolytica1
i was curious as to whether a real example would turn up in this thread, and it has.
the first question would be a guess for me so i won't attempt that.
but i think the system set up by the IAF and ISO/IEC17021 and MOUs establish a possibly self-consistent process. but not all auditors are the same so there is that variability, which may be good or bad.
and also what was said just above was better worded than what i can do.
the first question would be a guess for me so i won't attempt that.
but i think the system set up by the IAF and ISO/IEC17021 and MOUs establish a possibly self-consistent process. but not all auditors are the same so there is that variability, which may be good or bad.
and also what was said just above was better worded than what i can do.
Colin
Quite Involved in Discussions
I am working with a company who hold certificates to 5 of the major standards, all issued by CQS, who are accredited by IAB. I have also seen other systems put in by CQS (yes, they also write systems as well as certify them) and there is a remarkable similarity between the systems.
They have the same quality policy, objectives, list of procedures etc. A cynic would say that they just change the name on the front and from then on, they refer to 'the organisation' (similar to ISO 9001 really).
On the face of it you wouldn't give much for the credibility of such systems but a trawl through posts on this site would say that there are many problems with CB's who are accredited by IAF member bodies too.
Indeed, since the implementation of 17021 I am finding more and more organisations who are reaching breaking point with their CB/Registrar due to an increase in the number of days quoted by the CB and are looking for an alternative. Especially when the auditor(s) spend no more time auditing than they did previously and the additional day(s) are spent 'report writing' off site!
They have the same quality policy, objectives, list of procedures etc. A cynic would say that they just change the name on the front and from then on, they refer to 'the organisation' (similar to ISO 9001 really).
On the face of it you wouldn't give much for the credibility of such systems but a trawl through posts on this site would say that there are many problems with CB's who are accredited by IAF member bodies too.
Indeed, since the implementation of 17021 I am finding more and more organisations who are reaching breaking point with their CB/Registrar due to an increase in the number of days quoted by the CB and are looking for an alternative. Especially when the auditor(s) spend no more time auditing than they did previously and the additional day(s) are spent 'report writing' off site!
R
Reg Morrison
Colin, thanks for sharing your perspective. Sometime ago I challenged anyone to mention how the registrars were improving the confidence aspect of their service and the only thing I got was silence.
You hit the nail on the head. If the "traditional" approach is not providing confidence to anyone, companies will shortcut the process and go with a cheaper option.
I
isolytica1
Not sure if this actually answers the just previous questions, as sometimes I understand relevance and sometimes not. So... taking a quote from IAF MD9...
Accreditation reduces risk for business and its customers by assuring them that accredited
Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) are competent to carry out the work they undertake within their scope of accreditation. Accreditation Bodies (ABs) which are members of IAF and their accredited CABs are required to comply with appropriate international standards and IAF mandatory documents for the consistent application of those standards.
AB members of the IAF Multilateral Recognition Arrangement (MLA) conduct regular
evaluations of each other to assure the equivalence of their accreditation programs. The IAF
MLAs operate at two levels:
• The accreditation of CABs to standards including ISO/IEC 17021 for management
systems certification bodies, ISO/IEC 17024 for personnel certification bodies and
ISO/IEC Guide 65 for product certification bodies, is considered a framework MLA. A
framework MLA provides confidence that accredited CABs are equally reliable in the
performance of conformity assessment activities.
• The accreditation of CABs that also includes the specific conformity assessment standard or scheme as a scope of accreditation provides confidence in the equivalence of
certification.
The IAF MLA delivers the confidence needed for market acceptance of certification. An
organization or person with certification to a specific standard or scheme that is accredited by an IAF MLA signatory AB can be recognized worldwide thereby facilitating international trade.
...where the underscores are mine, thinking these are the reasons for having ABs and CABs. Perhaps the last underline is what non-accredited CABs actually offer to those that are not fully informed?
Accreditation reduces risk for business and its customers by assuring them that accredited
Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) are competent to carry out the work they undertake within their scope of accreditation. Accreditation Bodies (ABs) which are members of IAF and their accredited CABs are required to comply with appropriate international standards and IAF mandatory documents for the consistent application of those standards.
AB members of the IAF Multilateral Recognition Arrangement (MLA) conduct regular
evaluations of each other to assure the equivalence of their accreditation programs. The IAF
MLAs operate at two levels:
• The accreditation of CABs to standards including ISO/IEC 17021 for management
systems certification bodies, ISO/IEC 17024 for personnel certification bodies and
ISO/IEC Guide 65 for product certification bodies, is considered a framework MLA. A
framework MLA provides confidence that accredited CABs are equally reliable in the
performance of conformity assessment activities.
• The accreditation of CABs that also includes the specific conformity assessment standard or scheme as a scope of accreditation provides confidence in the equivalence of
certification.
The IAF MLA delivers the confidence needed for market acceptance of certification. An
organization or person with certification to a specific standard or scheme that is accredited by an IAF MLA signatory AB can be recognized worldwide thereby facilitating international trade.
...where the underscores are mine, thinking these are the reasons for having ABs and CABs. Perhaps the last underline is what non-accredited CABs actually offer to those that are not fully informed?
Similar threads
