Randy said:
DUH!! The so called qualifications (do you not have one?) require experience to obtain, especially the RAB ones. I'm no great lover of the RAB, but they don't award a Lead Auditor cert to some clod just because he can pass a test and pay the fee.
Your understanding of the auditing process and a couple of other nice things also appears to be flawed. Have you ever heard of the word "compentency"? The competence of an auditor has to be verifiable as with anyone else within a management system, so using a "so-called" qualified auditor can help overcome that barrier. As a "so-called" qualified auditor I have hammered (just stating the facts here) the internal audit programs of organizations because they could not verify or provide evidence that their auditors knew krap or could audit.
In reference to the above the following RAB certification doesn't count
SAYLE, SYDNEY SUE LAVER
6794 CORRIGAN DRIVE
BRIGHTON, MI 48116 US
Grade: QMS-LA
Certification: Q03883 Date Certified: 1994-12-23 Expiration: 2004-12-23
Available for hire: Y
FOE: Automotive, Truck, Off-Road Vehicle
FOE: Business, Professional, Personal Services
FOE: Distribution; Wholesale, Retail
FOE: Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
FOE: Health, Medical Services
FOE: Public Administration Services
I sure hope you don't get into trouble for saying that this persons qualification isn't important!
Ah! At the end of a busy day, helping clients clean up problems left by incopmpetent auditors, it is so nice to have something to laugh about. Thank you, Randy.
Yes, I have indeed heard about "competence" - I have written about the subject, in fact. It is the "demonstrated ability" to actually perform an assigned task. To my knowledge, the RAB, as is the case for other present day certifiers of auditors, makes no attempt to actually witness an auditor preparing, performing or reporting an audit. That is they make no attempt to watch an auditor "demonstrate" he/she can actaually audit. Nor do they aver a "certified auditor" is necessarily experienced in particular processes. The certificate actually only means they
believe the person
should be able to prepare, perform and report an audit. The person's actual auditing expereince is based on references. Of course, the dirty little secret is that there is very little verification of the standard of auditing achieved and many references are on the basis of buddy and crony sign-offs - especially when relating to internal auditing experiences.
So, does an RAB or similar auditor certificate infer competence for the particular audit? Well, one needs to consider all of the (common) horror stories about registrars. One needs to ask which certified auditors involved in the BF tire deaths and were "struck off". And one has to examine one's personal experience of looking at the outcome of so many "audits" performed by "certified auditors". They certainly do exhibit the traits of "clods who passed a test and paid a fee."
If one wants to engage an outside auditor, which is the original point of this thread, you need one who is au fait with the technology etc if they are to add value as distinct from performing the typical "docs and stickers" audits.
I have observed far too many trained and certified auditors who cannot effectively audit a process - only do nit pick jobs - as they really do not understand what it is the auditee is doing. Equally well, I have observed a considerable number of people who are terrific auditors who lack substantial training and possess no certification. Regardless of what training has been given, when it comes to competence, I prefer the Missouri wisdom.
As to my wife's views about my views, they are, as is said, a matter for Randy to speculate upon and for me to know. She is indeed flattered to note his interest and the free publicity he provides by reproducing them in the illustrious Cove, but they are not germane to the original question raised in this thread.
Oh yes, Randy, I was first "certified" as an auditor in 1977, having been doing them for several years. That was for auditing to ANSI N45.2 and associated standards for the Nuclear Industry.

And, my audit training course was one of the first group of four such registered by the IQA back in 1984 when that body started the first scheme for "certifying" audit courses and auditors - long before the RAB was even a twinkle in the ASQ's eyes. I removed my course from that scheme in 1990-1991 as I felt its evolved requirements required people to be trained inadequately: my approach, rejected by that body back then when the original ISO 9K had not long been released, is now known as the "process approach". Since it is now the adopted approach, I suppose there must be some people around the world who reckon I do know something about the audit process. Happily, none of my clients have cared since I first started as a consultant, in 1983, whether or not I was "certified" but as they still occasionally come back to me (some after twenty years of so of association), I guess they must feel I know something about the audit "process". I prefer their certificates - repeat business, promptly paid invoices and kind letters of commendation.
Have a nice day and let's enjoy a six pack together some time.