IATCA changes name and moves to new auditor certification criteria
What's happened to IATCA?
What does this mean for auditors wishing
to become certified to the IATCA criteria?
What does this mean for currently certified
IATCA auditors?
When will the new IPC criteria be available?
Will the new certification criteria be
different?
Will certification to the competency-based
criteria cost more?
Will the customers recognize (and value)
the new competency-based certification as indicative of a more
effective auditor?
What do Certification Bodies/Registrars
think of this?
What is IRCA's position?
What's happened to IATCA?
First, IATCA itself has changed. In fact, IATCA is no more
and in its place is IPC, the International Personnel
Certification Association . The reasons for this change
are simple. Members of IATCA recognized that there are now many
sectors within business, industry and government that require
and benefit from personnel certification. IATCA was established
10 years ago expressly to address the management systems market.
During those 10 years the requirement for personnel certification
has extended into many more areas and management systems now
forms only a small part of the personnel certification market.
To accommodate those changes IATCA has expanded its remit to
include and contribute within those other areas, and has evolved
into IPC.
IPC differs from IATCA in that the membership requirements
have changed. Full IPC membership is restricted to those personnel
certification bodies who are accredited to the new ISO standard
for accreditation of personnel certification bodies; ISO 17024.
Other organizations may contribute and be involved within IPC
as associate members, for instance training and examining organizations
and recognized accreditation bodies, but essentially, IPC will
be operated by those organizations accredited against ISO 17024
to offer personnel certification.
IATCA considered a change of name was necessary for two reasons.
The first is that the IATCA 'brand name' is associated entirely
with management systems. And second, because training is no
longer a required component of certification it is misleading
to incorporate it within the association's name.
The intention is that IPC attracts and contributes its services
to a far greater range of stakeholders, and it will be much
more successful in achieving this with a new brand, a new mission
and by actively involving a greater range of interests.
What does
this mean for auditors wishing to become certified to the IATCA
criteria?
IRCA and other personnel certification bodies authorized to
issue IATCA certificates may do so until September, 2006. The
certificates will be issued under the IPC name, but they will
be in accordance with the current IATCA criteria.
What does this mean
for currently certified IATCA auditors?
First, your IATCA (IPC) certification will continue to be valid
until at least September, 2006 (provided of course that you
continue to meet the criteria). You can renew certification
against the current criteria up until September 2006. If your
recertification becomes due after September 2006 you will be
required to renew against (i.e. transfer to) the new criteria.
All IPC certificates issued against the current (IATCA) criteria
will lapse at September 2009.
When will
the new IPC criteria be available?
The new criteria are intended to be available later in 2005
but the rules determining which members of IPC are permitted
to issue certificates against these new criteria have not yet
been agreed.
Will the new certification
criteria be different?
Yes. The emphasis of the new criteria will be the demonstration
of defined competences by independent examination. IPC will
define the competences and will suggest a number of examination
methods by which the personnel certification bodies may require
you to demonstrate you have acquired these competences. The
main difference is there is no longer a requirement to complete
certified training. Some training is required but this will
be directed at the gaps in competence and will differ from person
to person.
Will certification to the
competency-based criteria cost more?
We cannot say for certain, but the likelihood of an increase
in fees ranges from 'probably' to 'almost certainly'. This is
because the evaluation is more complex than the current format.
ISO 17024 requires we look at three categories for evaluation;
personal attributes, auditing-related knowledge and auditing
skills. Although IPC hasn't yet decided on the detail of evaluation
and examination, it is very likely to involve either you, the
applicant, in more cost, or it will cost us more, and we will
pass on the additional cost to you. For example, the newly-merged
RABQSA organization requires applicants to have their auditing
skills assessed, most likely at assessment centres and this
must add significantly to the cost.
Will the customers
recognize (and value) the new competency-based certification
as indicative of a more effective auditor?
Another way of asking this question might be, 'Will customers
be prepared to pay more for auditors who have an accredited,
competency-based certification?' The answer to this is not straightforward,
and will depend on a number of factors; What country the auditor
works in, whether the certification bodies/registrars prefer
their auditors to have competency-based certification, whether
the customers understand the differences between the current
format and the competency-based format, whether the accreditation
bodies are able to avoid confusing the market by implementing
ISO 17024 accreditation differently in different countries.
In short, only time will tell and those auditors who invest
in gaining competency-based accredited certification will have
no assurance that their investment will pay off.
What do Certification
Bodies/Registrars think of this?
The one's we have talked to so far indicate they are adopting
a wait and see approach (see below).
What is IRCA's position?
Our approach is, as ever, to contribute value by providing
what users want. And as at this time, it is not clear what they
want. The situation so far is that we have a new accreditation
standard (ISO 17024) that requires auditor certification bodies
to apply a much more rigorous approach. But already it is clear
there is little consistency between the different accreditation
bodies in how they interpret and implement this standard. This
is bound to lead to variation in the levels at which auditors
are certified which, because the differing standards will all
be 'accredited', will confuse the users.
The majority of certification bodies/registrars we have talked
to do not intend to do anything until it is clear that the competency-based
certification contributes clear benefits to them. Currently,
we are talking to a range of stakeholders (including accreditation
bodies) and drafting criteria options based on what we understand
customers want, and in accordance with how the accreditation
body interprets 17024. In other words, what our customers want
and what the accreditation body allows us to offer!
We are also contributing our expertise to the two new IAF working
groups tasked with looking at auditing within a third-party
environment, and how ISO 17024 can be interpreted and applied
internationally. We believe a structural approach to this new
initiative is best. Once we have achieved agreement across a
broad range of stakeholders (accreditation bodies, certification
bodies/registrars, auditors and users of auditors) as to what
an ISO 17024 competency-based system means, i.e. how the standard
should be interpreted and implemented, then we will be in a
much better position to develop and offer meaningful criteria.
By meaningful we mean a certification that will be accepted,
valued and recognized.
Click
here to view the related IPC press release.