Paul Simpson
Trusted Information Resource
Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes
I agree Sidney. Also, at the next level down, CBs / registrars need to be accountable for the certification they provide - unless and until ABs are able to police the industry (and FWIW I don't think it is possible without a sea change in the industry) - a registrar needs to be brought to book by their clients customers (or the customer directly). Hence my earlier proposal for a "name and shame process" shouted down on this forum.
There is too much variability in the output of the assessment and certification process (poor firms certified and good firms forced to jump through hoops on an auditor's whim). On behalf of the CB I represent we welcome any feedback (even if it brings short term pain) in order to improve our "offering" to the market.
Thank you, Paul. In my viewpoint, this just strengthens my pledge that AB's need to be accountable to the users of accredited certificates, issued under their schemes. Until there is some formal mechanism to enforce accountability of the AB's to Society and Industry at large, the monopolistic approach to accreditation does not guarantee trust and confidence of the end product.
I agree Sidney. Also, at the next level down, CBs / registrars need to be accountable for the certification they provide - unless and until ABs are able to police the industry (and FWIW I don't think it is possible without a sea change in the industry) - a registrar needs to be brought to book by their clients customers (or the customer directly). Hence my earlier proposal for a "name and shame process" shouted down on this forum.
There is too much variability in the output of the assessment and certification process (poor firms certified and good firms forced to jump through hoops on an auditor's whim). On behalf of the CB I represent we welcome any feedback (even if it brings short term pain) in order to improve our "offering" to the market.