Should Registrars "police" registrants websites?

[AndyN]

Yes, but shouldn't we be doing preventive action, instead of waiting until time comes for correction and corrective action?

By using the "don't ask, don't tell" approach, CB's might win the business, but is that ethical? Or "integrity-aggregator"? Shouldn't a CB make sure the relationship is "clean" from the beginning?

I agree, I was hoping that's what I was saying in my earlier post. Ethical CB's will do the right thing, those others (both unethical and careless ones) who just walked into the situation, will be found out, eventually........

Small personal story - I visited a company (many years ago) who were registered to ISO 9001:2000 having excluded design. The meeting was held in the ENGINEERING CENTER! Their product designs have been known to me since I was a teenager! I was even led to believe that the CB auditor had written the exclusion statement! Needless to say a complaint was lodged and up held with the (then) RAB.......!!

 

[BradM]

Do Covers think that CB's should "police" claims such as this? Not only of their clients, but applicants too?

Opinions welcomed.

My opinion is "yes", they should police such claims. I will grant this is not an easy subject. Technically, your customer is the organization you would be working with; however, the downstream supply chain to the organization will suffer, as I believe they are being deceived.

To me, it's like a lab having one or two technical specialties covered under their 17025 scope, but doing calibrations under 20 or 30 different areas.

When asked about the mismatch, both organizations responded that, we really don't have design capabilities, but the owner thought we would look better in the eye of prospects, if we said we did, in our website.

As mentioned by someone else, I would ask for evidence/processes to support their statements made on the website. Too, an obvious question is why you would want to offer such services, but then not have a viable process in place to support it. If they have a viable process, why are they wanting to exempt it?

In both cases, I told them that I could not offer a commercial proposal for certification with the design exclusion, as long as they boast to the World they do design, via their website. My competition does not seem to care about that. They got quotes from other CB's.

Ahhh... the rub with being ethical. I still maintain that keeping the high road will pay off in the end. It will cost companies in the end by auditing a few processes, and let so many more fall outside the scope. The organization should be embracing the QMS to improve their entire process; instead of scheming how they can get around things for whatever reason.

 

[Randy]

Let's not confuse eveyone and bring ethics into this

Dis is biznus an dat ain't got nuttin' ta do wid no etics

 

[joshua_sx1]

...I had a similar experience with one of our supplier who bid to one of our project claiming that they are an ISO certified company and that they do design…

…after an audit visit… “yes” they are an ISO certified company… “yes” they are performing mechanical design… and “no” – they design is not included on their QMS scope…

…so after completing my supplier evaluation report (and gave them copy), even them were amazed that their design was not part of their QMS scope…

…I don’t know if they are not really aware of it or that they were trying to fool around their customer… anyway, I totally agree with other sentimentals here that CB’s should consider other information that were falsely given by the organization to their customer as one criteria in defining scope of QMS registration…

…when I asked about this with their CB (since I knew one person from there), he just simply told me that this company does not (or don’t) want to include “design” on their QMS scope even they are doing it… and there is nothing wrong about it – according to this person, it is the organization prerogative… instead, it is now up to their customer’s preference whether to get their “design” service even it is not included in their QMS…

…well, unfortunately, not all of us think the same business-ethical way…

 

[SteelMaiden]

I'm not sure I think "police" is the right word, but I would say that somewhere along the line a registrar has every right to look at a website and ask the questions about the differences between what is being registered and what is being done.

being "one of those steel mills", I do have to say that we cannot "design" anything. We have to work to specifications written by other specification bodies. Yep, we have done some exotic stuff, or been asked to do some exotic stuff, but at the end of the day, someone else handed us a set of chemical requirements that we had to stay within. Other than that, or product has thickness, width and length. No design, lots of tweaking our processes on new grades to ensure we have no bad outcomes, but no design.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

ANAB has an Accreditation Rule on the subject: (broken link removed) .

The question is: How forcefully is it enforced? And monitored?

 

[tyker]

Several years ago, I visited 3 companies (in the USA) who were seeking registration. One was a tooling and equipment design specialist with no manufacturing capability whatsoever. One was a tooling manufacturer and the third a manufacturer/installer of production equipment.

All actively advertised for and sought design and manufacturing business and offered a turn-key production line design, manufacture, installation, commissioning service.

Although the companies were separate legal entities under different ownership, they had formed an alliance. All the design work was carried out by the first organization, all the manufacturing by the others.

The company which won a contract would let out sub-contracts to the others and project manage the whole thing. Their customers were not misled and knew exactly who was doing what work.

The companies were offered registration for the scope of work they actually performed not necessarily what they advertised. I didn't have a problem with that and still wouldn't although I'm not fully up to date with today's accreditation rules. Unfortunately we didn't get the business.

Is it possible, Sidney, that your potential customers had a similar relationship with a registered design facility and would that have changed your decision?

 

[prototyper]

Talking hypothetically, it is possible for an engineering company with design capabilities to take on aerospace work, manufacturing purely to customer designs.
Could they then have ISO9001 with design included but also have AS9000 with design excluded from the scope?

 

[Big Jim]

Talking hypothetically, it is possible for an engineering company with design capabilities to take on aerospace work, manufacturing purely to customer designs.
Could they then have ISO9001 with design included but also have AS9000 with design excluded from the scope?

If they are dual registered and have a carefully worded scope statement, yes.