Manual Rejected - Unable to find "shall" to support rejection - Responsibility Matrix

[RoxaneB]

Thank you for the clarification, Roxane. Another case of Randy-gone-wild I guess.

Not necessarily. In Randy's defence, I believe I've asked questions about ISRS before and in this post I've indicated a common registrar...understandable that a particular conclusion would be reached. I should have been more clear in separating our ISRS registrar from our ISO's registrar.

 

[RoxaneB]

Are you sure that this may not just be a misunderstanding? I have often been asked to fill out a responsibility matrix for the AUDIT, not the manual. This is to let the auditors know who the contact is for each area and track who is interviewed. It could be that the registrar, when reviewing the auditors report, found one of THEIR pieces of paper was missing and rejected the audit report and not your manual.

Dunno...I've mention in other posts in this thread that we resubmitted a matrix outlining processes and "champions" to the registrar. Basically, we re-sent a piece of paper that they had us fill in prior to the audit.

 

[Paul Simpson]

There is no dark side of the moon. It's all dark

A good question, but undoubtedly in this thread, and the discourse is sliding a bit towards the dark side. I'm not sure that I disagree with your basic premise, but maybe it would be best to start a new thread on the subject.

I agree about the way the thread is going towards confrontation. I said it myself.

In the word of the lawyers: For the avoidance of doubt I am quite happy for criticism of

• My statements
• My interpretation of the standard
• My opinions of what is a good management system and what is not
• The manner of my posting
• My sense of humour
• My dress sense and good looks (although this would obviously be difficult)

I am not happy about any criticism of my integrity and will inevitably respond. So if we want to keep the discussions to the topic then let us all take some statements as read - unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Regarding the I merely mentioned it again.

As has been stated in other threads (and this one earlier) I understand the name and shame is not wanted. However this and many other threads are directly related to customer perception of the value of assessment and certification and hence the need for a forum to discuss registrar non compliances directly (with them having a right to reply) keeps coming up - in my mind at least.:truce:

 

[Wes Bucey]

Are you sure that this may not just be a misunderstanding? I have often been asked to fill out a responsibility matrix for the AUDIT, not the manual. This is to let the auditors know who the contact is for each area and track who is interviewed. It could be that the registrar, when reviewing the auditors report, found one of THEIR pieces of paper was missing and rejected the audit report and not your manual.

I hadn't meant to re-enter this thread, but this is an IMPORTANT clue to why we need to have free and open communication with all parties (by sharing summaries of private communications with all the players.) Roxane is obviously shut out of the loop in this situation and is caught between dual bureaucracies (the registrar and her own organization) which wants communication to go through one person and apparently Roxane is shut out of even commenting on the decision process as to the proper way to deal with this situation.

I think Roxane's organization has to take some lessons in how to plumb the "Profound Knowledge" within the organization to respond to outside "threats" to its wellbeing.

 

[Al Rosen]

First things, after an exchange of PMs with Roxanne I have to hold my hand up and say I was wrong - there are at least two registrars out there with systems that stink .... but seriously.

I knew it was too good to last. The recent exchange of posts has all been going along so sweetly and now I can feel my hackles rising.


Not that one, an easy mistake to make, general banter, easy to write a post that can be read as more firm than it is, applies both ways.

Same applies. I sometimes over tell people when I am joking, Al replied a little bluntly but I can live with it.

Now the hackles are up. If I say I would like to know when an employee or a sub contractor is bringing my company into disrepute then to doubt it questions my integrity and over the years I have been known to react to that. So let me state it again, unequivocally.

If there are any issues with non compliances or any other part of the audit / certification process that is contentious:

I WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT!

I would prefer it if customers contact me direct but if they want to post it on the cove then I accept that as a penalty for being a registrar and in the public domain.

Again a trifle blunt. There are plenty of other threads on the cove when posters are saying they don't want to go down this channel.

So let me ask the question again. If the customer doesn't feel they can use the "proper" channels then should there be a forum where they can have their grievances aired? If members don't think so, that is fine with me.

1. You may want to have a dispute aired in public, but I doubt a registrar would. I did not mean to question your integrity and I appoligize, for not being clear.
2. I would only go the Accreditation Body route if the registrar was unresponsive. At this point it appears that this has not been discussed with the registrar.
3. Maybe there should be a place to air grievances, but I wouldn't recommend it while you still have a business relationship with either a supplier or a customer. There are many reasons why, one of which is it's just not professional. I don't think I'm wrong in this respect. You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine.

 

[Paul Simpson]

We can agree

1. You may want to have a dispute aired in public, but I doubt a registrar would.

Thanks for your reply. Again, just to make myself clear, I am representing a registrar. My consulting company has a contract to deliver the management systems certification services of a UKAS accredited UK based registrar - Sira Certification Services. Having worked for one registrar on a permanent basis and a number as a contract auditor I know there is good and bad out there. We go through a process of review of reports and I try to look at each from a customer point of view -

• Do I agree a non compliance exists?
• Would I easily understand what the problem is
• Is the non compliance about opinion or fact

If I cannot get a satisfactory answer to these points I go back to the auditor. But there are still things stated during an audit that I cannot review and could result in the customer doing a whole bunch of additional work for no benefit - that is a danger that exists.

• I would only go the Accreditation Body route if the registrar was unresponsive. At this point it appears that this has not been discussed with the registrar.

Not sure if that is the case here. The auditor said ok and the registrar (headquarters) has challenged the manual. Agreed regarding accreditation bodies, but there are people out there who do not want to challenge even their registrar, much less take it to the next level.

• Maybe there should be a place to air grievances, but I wouldn't recommend it while you still have a business relationship with either a supplier or a customer.

It is to try and reduce the instances of a customer having to sling their registrar out that I initially proposed a forum to discuss non compliances. I am not saying this is easy - I understand the risks. My point in this is that I would like to know about problems with the assessment process before I get the boot from a customer. These fora are filled with flak for registrars - there is an opportunity to discuss things openly and give registrars a right to reply to dumb non compliances.

Can we just agree I won't suggest it again - the problem with tongue in cheek statements is that you can end up getting it bitten off.

There are many reasons why, one of which is it's just not professional.

What is not professional in the example that started this is the initial assessment and raising of a non compliance. Everything after that is trying to make the best of a bad job.

I don't think I'm wrong in this respect. You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine.

Agree completely. I may disagree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it (to paraphrase a much more noble statement).

 

[Randy]

Good grief guys I was joking....has everyone taken an overdose of loss of humor medication?

What I'm really hoping is that I personally didn't have anything to do with the training of whoever created this "new" requirement, because if I did some reevaluation is necessary.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Partially :
When I was in high school, we had a physical education coach who probably should have been institutionalized. Whenever a dispute arose between boys, all activity stopped while Coach Oker rigged up a boxing ring and brought out 16 ounce gloves for the combatants to wear. Then he would referee for up to four 3-minute rounds while the school boys pummeled each other to the cheers and jeers of the rest of a 50 or 60 boy class.


So, Al & Paul, Coach Oker is long dead, but I have some 16 ounce gloves . . .

 

[Al Rosen]

Partially :
When I was in high school, we had a physical education coach who probably should have been institutionalized. Whenever a dispute arose between boys, all activity stopped while Coach Oker rigged up a boxing ring and brought out 16 ounce gloves for the combatants to wear. Then he would referee for up to four 3-minute rounds while the school boys pummeled each other to the cheers and jeers of the rest of a 50 or 60 boy class.


So, Al & Paul, Coach Oker is long dead, but I have some 16 ounce gloves . . .

No need for them on my part.

 

[Wes Bucey]

"Discussion" is the better part of valor!

No need for them on my part.

After one session in the ring, I, too, learned to resolve differences (or ignore them) lest they come to the notice of "da coach."

Nobody really wins in boxing matches or any fights, for that matter. Look at poor Muhammed Ali and what boxing has done to his brain.