Open letters
INform invites comments, answers and further questions either relating to these letters or posing new topics. Make yourself heard and send us your feedback
We support your stand in having one regulator for certification bodies and standardizing the interpretation and understanding of the standards. This is a real scenario we are seeing with some organizations we get to visit and audit, people are beginning to see the certificates as a joke - especially when they benchmark against players in the same industry certified by the same organization.
If IRCA-run courses are to be used as a worldwide standard, there is a need to implement strategic regional offices in a number of sites around the world for it to get nearer to all the clients.
Your information on standards interpretation is proving to be helpful and I have distributed your e-newsletter to a number of colleagues who will also find it value-adding.
Taurai Chiduza
I congratulate you for your Spanish website, because there are a lot of Latin people and Spanish speakers who need your services.
Maria Alejandra Quijada Tijerina
I thank you for your initiative of launching a Spanish version of your organization’s website.
Fernando Adam Matamala
Thanks a lot. I am very happy as I can get the information and keep myself up to date with quality issues in my language.
Cesar Bedoya
In issue 9 IRCA director Simon Feary (click here) posed the following questions. See below for a response from an auditor in the UK
1. Do you think IRCA’s current certification criteria are effective at evaluating competence?
2. Does the certification criterion include all major categories of auditors who perform management system audits?
3. Do you think it can be improved, and if so, how?
4. If the improvements involve a higher cost, are applicants prepared to accept an increase, and, if so, how much increase?
1. They should be, as they are initially quite exacting. However, on an ongoing basis, recertification is relatively easy, as long as the auditor is diligent in recording continuing professional development (CPD) activities and audits performed. There is nothing within these records which indicate the quality of a given auditor’s skills at auditing. I have personally witnessed recently a huge variation in the quality and depth of auditing demonstrated by a number of auditors from a well-known certification body. Some of them are head and shoulders above others in the value added service they give.
Moreover, there seems to be a huge variation in methodology among auditors from the same certification body. This poses the question as to whether the certification bodies themselves are ensuring their auditors are gaining sufficient CPD training and monitoring their performance. I have only ever, in 16 years in the quality field, witnessed one occurrence of an auditor being ‘audited’ on the job during a certification audit. As it is a taxing job done properly and thoroughly, it is easy for auditors to get jaded, take the easy route of keeping the customers happy, or just getting plain tired. Which brings me to the point that I think being a full-time auditor is counter-productive. If you are always auditing, when do you get to learn anything new?
2. Yes, I think the introduction of the principal auditor grade which caters to consultants and sole auditors, allowed a large number of individuals who were unable to lead audits to maintain their registration.
3. The answer lies in my reply to the first question. There needs to be more objective shadowing of auditors on the job and diligence in continuing professional development.
4. Realistically the cost is likely to be born by the clients of the certification bodies who would pass on the cost of monitoring and retraining to them. This might be the last straw.
Chris Gowens
In response to INform issue 10’s hot topic ‘How do we go about rebuilding the credibility of the certification process?’, I would like to suggest that there may be several other issues involved in credibility disconnect.
As a third party auditor and lead auditor for over eight years I was witness to many unethical issues that despite documented complaints to management landed me without a job and blacklisted. My efforts to resolve these issues higher up the management chain landed me in abureaucratic nightmare and, in my opinion, cover up efforts by the accrediting bodies and regulating bodies. So upset with this perceived corruption that I immediately cancelled my auditor certifications.
Additional possible reasons for lack of credibility in the certification process are:
- marketing and sales at the registrar can influence the selection of the audit team
- monetary and possible loss of business cause a conflict of interest since the registrar is being paid by the organization seeking certification. Rates and audit teams can be negotiated. ‘Easy’ auditors can be requested. Some are auditors also influenced by the organization by dinners, golf outings etc
- malleable auditors that are influenced more by politics rather than compliance to the applicable standards and requirements
- lack of consistency in interpretation and application by auditors, even within the same registrar
- intentional violation of auditor selection requirements by the registrar and subsequently
- incompetent or biased investigations of complaints by the accrediting body
- possible incompetent or biased investigations of complaints by the International Accreditation Forum (IAF)
- apparent lack of 'jurisdiction' claimed by IAF for sector specific requirements
- apparent lack of 'jurisdiction' claimed by Automotive Industry Action Group and International Automotive Task Force
The solution? Unilaterally move all accrediting activities to government agencies. Investigate the credibility of the IAF and either reorganize or disband this organization and give these responsibilities to an international organization that is more accountable and less influenced and biased by its members, who also sit in on complaints.
Peter Maizitis
The views expressed on the feedback pages and elsewhere in INform are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of IRCA.
