Certification and consultancy
There is a long-standing debate about whether independent third-party certification can be related in any way to consultancy. Is it possible to be a certification body and have a consultancy within the same organization? Here, Roger Brockway, UKAS' former external affairs director, sets the record straight
The issue for management system certification bodies is worth exploring. The current standards, ISO/IEC Guides 62, 66 etc, forbid a certification body to be in the same legal entity as a consultancy in management systems. That would seem to draw a simple line under the matter. But there are two grey areas that arise from this that accreditation bodies regularly have to confront.
First, the standards allow 'related bodies' of the certification bodies to provide management system consultancy (as long as they are not in the same legal entity). Second, what exactly is 'consultancy'? In good standardizing manner our industry has attempted to clarify the grey by defining these terms, but, as in many similar endeavours, the effect of precise definition is to create loopholes through which certification bodies, wittingly or unwittingly, may travel.
Close relations
Almost all certification bodies have related bodies if you define the term broadly (common owners, common directors etc). It would be unreasonable to forbid a certification body to be in the same group or wider organization, defined in such broad terms, as a consultant. But if you try to define the term more narrowly, why draw the line at any particular point? By doing so you legitimize, or appear to legitimize, all business relations that fall outside the narrow definition, which may in effect commit that which needs to be prevented. The controls are set in the IAF guidance at the level of identifying, and mitigating, potential conflicts of interest. So what is the risk to the integrity of the certification service?
Clearly, if a relationship exists between a consultancy and a certification body which leads a client to believe that if it buys the service of the consultancy it will then have an easy run with the certification body, the certification service has lost its integrity, and therefore its value. But if a certification body and a consultancy are properly managed and separated, and are within the same group of companies, is there any harm in their coexistence? Probably not, as long as all is transparent in the market and the certification body knows where its reputation has to lie - in independence and objectivity rather than as the provider of a cheap and cheerful product in the form of an easily won piece of paper.
In fact, there can be great strengths for certification in having such connections. No auditors are going to perform at their best if they audit five days a week forever. Consultancy is probably one of the best complementary activities that help auditors to perform competently in their audit function. There are advantages for an organization that can offer a mix of both activities to its people. While integrity is the bedrock of the certification service, next in order of importance comes technical competence, including the ability to understand the client's organization and add value.
Defining consultancy
Which brings us to the question: what is consultancy in the field of management systems? For our purposes it is creative input into the development of an organization's system, sold as such to a customer. The separation of this from certification is all about conflict of interest. As long as no such conflict arises, certification bodies should not be inhibited from being helpful to their customers. The process of non-conforming a system, backed up by good explanation, can add certification value in a distinctly different manner to consultancy value. The difference is underlined by the lesser cost.
UKAS is the last organization to want to legitimize practices where so-called certification bodies help organizations set up their systems and then issue certificates of conformity as if from an independent body, or where 'a nod and a wink' agreement exists between consultancies and certification bodies. These practices do operate in the certification market, bringing disrepute to what should be a business based on trust.
The standards and accreditation criteria clearly outlaw these goings-on, and where they are detected, they never benefit from national accreditation. But as we develop the future standard for management system certification bodies, ISO/IEC 17021, UKAS is keen to ensure that the tools needed to strengthen the outlawing of such practices do not, at the same time, restrict the practice of legitimate certification so that it can only be performed by policemen and not by organizations who can make a significant technical contribution to the economy.
This article first appeared in Qualityworld (February 2004), and accurately reflects the opinion of UKAS.
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |