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
Up the garden path?
In reference to the letter from Les Barnes (‘Process poser’, Open letters, issue 8), I too have a question about IRCA certification criteria – in particular about attaining auditor/lead auditor status.
My personal view is that the requirements are biased towards larger organizations, where companies have the resource to allow their auditors to carry out, for example, five day audits, with a team, and even with another lead auditor for verification. I, sadly, do not have that privilege. For my last three employers I've been the most qualified. Apart from doing audits, I have managed to attain the ISO 9000 standard for the company and its depots, so an individual with that capability, who also carries out audits one would assume should be up to a level of lead auditor.
I've been a registered internal auditor now for some years and I have seven other members of staff who act as internal auditors who seek guidance from me, whether I'm acting as their lead auditor or not. But now it saddens me to realize that there is no value to my membership, when I come across so called lead auditors who are not registered with IRCA, who do not have to follow a 'code of conduct', and yet earn a decent living out of that function alone.
I've completed an approved course, got my certificate, I can call myself a lead auditor - but I haven't managed to convince IRCA. According to the requirements I, like Les Barnes, have insufficient evidence to gain that status. I cannot see the value in remaining a member of IRCA if it cannot see the bias in its requirements, which has basically hindered my ability to achieve a professional goal set with my company and my main client.
Anil Baid
To see IRCA's response to this letter (Simon Feary's feature, 'Fairly effective?'), click here.
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |