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 on the Q&A topic, the hot topic or any of those raised below. Alternatively, visit our new forum where you can join the live debate. Joining is easy and free. Simply go to the forum on the IRCA website by clicking here and then click 'register'.
I am truly grateful for the magazine - I have gained a lot of knowledge regarding the interpretation of ISO 9001 and on auditing techniques. Does the Auditing Practices Group offer advice on the interpretation of other standards particularly OHSAS 18001 and ISO 14001? I would be most grateful for information such as that which is offered for the QMS standard.
I have spent some time reading this particular issue and was reasonably impressed by its scope and overall content. I particularly found the feature ‘Spanish eyes’ interesting, especially the statistical information on the top ten countries across the world for ISO certification.
I have both a problem and a question. The problem is there is a debate about improving accredited certification and the competence of auditors. This in itself is fine but we are now moving toward multi-skilled audits covering environment and health and safety and I suspect the driving force behind this is to reduce the organization’s costs by doing as many as possible in as little time. I would like to remind everyone why quality certification was introduced - it was to stop multiple assessment.
The problem is the time allowed for auditors to carry out the audit. The decision on the number of audit man-days are often simply the number of days the organization is willing to accept.
Working in the Middle East I will never forget, while running a one day seminar on ISO 9001 for consultants and lead auditors, statements like: ‘How can it take more than a day and a half to audit?’ and ‘I don’t need to know what this department does as it is not relevant to me.’ This leads to what is called ‘system audits’. When complying with the ISO requirements, surveillance visits are often one person and one day. Why? Because it is a competitive environment and the only way to make money and get business is to reduce costs. However, let’s go back to why certification was introduced - to stop multiple assessments. This was so purchasers could have the confidence to place orders with certified companies and so get precisely what they ordered.
Does ISO 9001 give confidence that you can place an order and get what you have ordered? Or does it indicate that they have a documented system? What is the real reason behind multiple assessments? Is it to give more time to do the audits or is it to reduce the cost to the certified organization?
As a registered auditor, I feel that this magazine really makes my life easier. I can now get first-hand knowledge about what’s going on in the world of auditing, new standards, new requirements of auditors’ skills and useful auditing techniques.
I read the article from Nigel Croft in the last edition of INform (click here) with interest. It is true that some companies will select certification bodies based on which one is the cheapest and will promise in advance that they will come and pass the company regardless of the level to which they have implemented an effective quality management system.
In my opinion, companies should instead contact central certification associations such as ABCB and chose from their approved list. Auditors will then have no pressure from the company and so can perform a transparent audit to satisfy the strict criteria of ABCB and ISO. If ABCB wants more control on attitudes and approaches to certification then it will have to convey a clearer message to certification bodies’ head offices. Everyone involved must unite and work together to achieve a level playing field for auditing practices. ABCB and other governing bodies have to launch comprehensive awareness campaigns to inform companies that now reliable certification bodies are, in fact, conducting the audit on ABCB’s behalf.
