Fairly effective?
This issue’s ‘open letter’ by Anil Baid raises some interesting points about the current criteria IRCA uses to certify auditor competence. Here, IRCA director Simon Feary explains the basis for IRCA’s current criteria and also poses a few questions for readers
There are two factors we ought not to lose sight of if we wish to critique IRCA’s practices. The first relates to our history. This organization was created with the express purpose of supporting third party accredited certification. And that, of course, implies that our customers are certification bodies, the large organizations to whom Mr Baid refers. The second point relates to IRCA’s function. Our role is to acknowledge and certify competence, and we do this using a formula that the broad range of interested stakeholders agree is valid. That formula is based on the ISO guidance standard on auditing, ISO 19011.
As with all businesses that operate without a statutory mandate, IRCA offers a service that users can choose to use, or choose not to use, according to the value they see it providing them. The fact that we have over 13,000 auditors currently certified from over 100 countries indicates that the value is widely recognized, both in terms of geography and in numbers. That it is only 13,000 when the potential within the conformity assessment environment is perhaps many times that number is both a reflection that we have set a standard that not everyone will attain, but also that our entry criteria are not appropriate for everyone who may be, in practice, competent. This, of course, is Mr Baid’s point.
Serious debate
There is a debate currently within the auditor certification industry on how best to demonstrate auditor competence. It is a particularly lively debate, stimulated both by the recent issue of the ISO 17024 standard which provides requirements on these matters, and by one of the other major auditor certification bodies which has broken with the traditional, ISO 19011-based certification model and is insisting that there is only one proper means of demonstrating competence, and that is through a valid and independent examination of skills.
Forget, they say, input factors such as training, academic qualifications, work experience, numbers of audits performed etc. These are regarded as having negligible relevance. Only an examination of the application of skills and knowledge, independently conducted, can be accepted as a true indicator of competence. What makes the debate lively is that the users of auditors, the certification bodies, are deeply suspicious of this new ideology. On the one hand there are those who have an academic and non-financial interest in this new approach and are reasonably supportive of it. On the other hand there are those who see the added costs which are a necessary consequence of actually assessing someone’s performance, usually in the field, and are tasked with figuring out how to absorb or pass these costs on to their customers. And those customers are largely ignorant or disinterested in the issue of the methodologies behind auditor competence are not at all sure the cost benefit equation is favourable to this change.
Certifiably competent
The long held assumptions regarding the way we measure competence are being challenged. This is healthy and we welcome it. But before we get too carried away and hurry to write off the current evaluation and certification practices as not good enough, we need to keep in mind both the context and the constraints within which we, the auditor certification bodies, and the certification bodies who use our certified auditors, operate.
The methods we use to evaluate and certify the competence of auditors are not perfect. But the costs are acceptable and the practice does add considerable value. I have argued recently that it is not the auditors’ competence we ought to be concerned about primarily, rather it is the certification bodies’ practices and the (lack of) control exercised by the accreditation bodies. But it may be that, as part of a hoped-for rethink in the way accredited certification is policed, we decide that we, the auditor certification bodies need to operate differently, perhaps to a different certification formula. And that may be something that addresses Mr Baid’s concerns.
Open forum
But this is IRCA's view. Others might think differently so I pose you the following questions, and look forward to your responses:
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?
Click here to submit your answers
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |