Carl Keller said:
OK,
So if you are buying a new house and the building inspector says:
"Hey, I am going to spend a few extra hours looking at your lawn because I see a lot of lawns and I noticed some brown patches on yours. I want this experience to be value added so I am going to give you some advice"
I am going to assume you guys would say:
" Gee, I am really liking this value added audit, the extra few hundred $$ is worth it!"
I'm thinking He needs to give me my certificate of occupancy and leave. If I want advice on my lawn, I'll call Lawn doctor.
I think PT Barnum was right.
Carl-
I still say this subject keeps getting confused. There are two different and very distinct possibilities:
- An auditing firm or registrar offers "value added" service and charges extra for it, and/or the advice contributes materially to the auditee's chances of registration. This seems to be clearly proscribed by ISO Guide 62.
- An auditor happens to notice something in the course of a registration or surveillance audit and he offers advice for improvement that will not affect the auditee's chances of getting registered. This seems to be clearly allowed by Guide 62, but stills seems to be objectionable to some people.
(Note: I am aware that Mr. Simpson disagrees with me on this subject. No need to continue flogging a dead horse.)
The building inspector analogy falls apart here because if an extra "few hundred $$" is being charged,( over and above what one would pay for building inspection alone) then one has to expect to get
something other than building inspection in return. On the other hand, if there's no extra charge, and the building inspector says, "You know, I had that same problem with my lawn and I did
x," then no harm has been done and you are free to do with the advice whatever you want.