The IRCA interview: IATCA's new dawn
Change is in the air at the International Auditor and Training Certification Association (IATCA). Simon Feary, director general IRCA, reveals all to INform
We understand
that there have been significant changes within IATCA recently. Can
you tell us what has been happening?
IATCA is about to disappear and in its place we have the International Personnel Certification Association (IPC). There is also a new chair in the form of George Anastasopoulos from PRCert Hellas, the Greek personnel certification body. There will also be, very shortly, a new secretariat which will be located in Greece.
The recent plenary meeting in Singapore was not well attended, but it achieved much. The change of direction agreed the year before in Chicago was reaffirmed and the membership of IPC will be restricted to personnel certification bodies. These will not be just auditor certification bodies, but any personnel certification organization that is accredited to ISO 17024. Training organizations, accreditation bodies and others who had previously been accepted within IATCA are now relegated to associate status.
IRCA
has been on the periphery of IATCA for a couple of years now - do
these recent changes mean it intends to become more involved?
In a word, yes. Our disengagement was intentional and the reasons for that have now largely disappeared. I have considerable respect for the competence and leadership abilities of the new chair and as a result we are now willing to actively contribute again. IRCA is now back on the board.
So does
this mean you think IPC will now begin to make useful contributions?
Not necessarily. To be successful IPC has to add something that the marketplace values. IATCA has failed, except in China, but the situation in that country is not representative of the rest of the world. I argued before the Singapore plenary that it was unrealistic to expect any change, that IATCA would continue to be ineffectual and that its role had been redefined officially by what it had unofficially become - a club whose members simply exchange information, argue and promote their own interests.
Forget writing criteria, multi-lateral agreements (MLAs) and peer evaluations, because IATCA has demonstrated its inability to perform these activities with any degree of competence. While part of me has not deviated from that view, I am sufficiently swayed by the change in leadership to give it another go.
IPC has put all its energies into ISO 17024. But it has reduced the risk that the management systems market might not embrace 17024 by broadening its membership to include areas outside management systems, in which personnel certification organizations are already familiar with the approach mandated by ISO 17024. So there is cause to be cautiously optimistic.
So how
do you think ISO 17024 is going to impact on management systems certification?
This is a difficult one. It will depend on what the marketplace wants, and what we, the providers, decide to offer it. I think we can forget IPC for the moment and consider this from the perspective of individual personnel certification bodies and their markets, and also from the perspective of the accreditation bodies. How will they interpret and apply ISO 17024?
It appears that in the US the inclination of the accreditation body (and the US government, which appears to be a significant driver) is to rigorously apply the standard and it may be that the registrars and ultimately business and industry will be required to accept all the costs and bureaucracy that go with it - or perhaps not accept it. Accreditation bodies in different parts of the world are likely to differ in how they apply the standard, which they are able to do as there is no 'calibrator' agreement at the IAF level. Ultimately, though, the customers will decide.
IATCA
was established to harmonize criteria and to create a level playing
field for the benefit of users of auditors. By championing ISO 17024
and the variation it allows, isn't it encouraging the exact opposite?
Yes, the irony of this has occurred to me, and I know others are concerned too. Part of the reason I supported IATCA's adoption of ISO 17024 was that I assumed it removed the need for an MLA supported by peer evaluation. But that seems unrealistic now we understand the IAF is not particularly interested in extending its MLA to include ISO 17024. In the absence of any calibrator at the accreditation body level another mechanism is needed. And this is where the grounds for my earlier optimism are challenged.
IATCA was weak at peer evaluation. And given the level of complexity involved in comparing one ISO 17024-based system with another, this weakness is increased by an order of magnitude. To first agree on rules whereby organizations may be evaluated, and then to competently perform the peer evaluation process is a huge task. And even with a shift in resolve, given IATCA's track record, it is one that will need a major improvement in approach if it is to have any chance of success.
But I think we need to wait and see how the accreditation bodies react. Until we are able to see what positions they take, it may be premature to be too concerned. Conversely, it may be too soon to be optimistic.
And
IRCA's position?
IRCA's position is clear. We will continue to work very closely with the users. What they want, we will do our best to provide, with or without accreditation, and with or without ISO 17024.
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |