Interesting Discussion Is the IAF drinking in the last chance saloon? - Update June 2022

JaneB said:

Frustrating? I can just imagine. And unethical, and pointless and such a sheer waste of everyone's time on having a 'system' like that (and I use the term very loosely!!) when it could and should be so much more.

As a counterpoint, I've experienced on a few occasions the opposite problem: having the auditor come in to a system that doesn't conform to 'ye bog standard everyday model' - but which suits the organisation to a T. But yes, it's not your usual one, and not one that a lazy or not very competent auditor is familiar with and accustomed to seeing. And it can be immensely frustrating pointing out, over and over, that while it may not conform to the norm (eg, not the 'standard quality manual' he's used to, or a different approach to CAPA) yes, it does comply - but takes a bit more effort and competency to audit!'

But I agree with Paul that it's a problem with the implementation not the Standard.

Click to expand...

Quite right Jane, I have no problem with 'different' when it comes to systems, in fact I like to see innovative solutions - it shows someone has been thinking about what suits the situation best rather than trotting out the same old solution each time.

Stijloor said:

Post #17: Somehow, the financial dependency of the Registrars/CB's on their clients could be changed. Because to be honest, not many will "bite the hands that feed them." Ideally, Registrars/CB's could be paid by an independent organization that collects funds from registered organizations. They could set decent rates thus preventing fee wars that devaluate their certification/registration services. I know, this goes square against the free entrprise system, so highly valued in the USA, but I see no other solution at this time.

Click to expand...

I understand the argument but I have to disagree. Are CBs somehow less moral than any other organisation? (Don't all rush to answer that! ) Seriously if a CB is interested in their long term future (rather than short term profit) they will make sure they look after their reputation - it is the same as for any other. If an organisation does not deserve certification and you choose to 'let them through' thier performance is a reflection of you as a CB.

Stijloor said:

Post #32: We as Trainers, Consultants, Auditors have an ethical obligation to become more, or remain vigilant in the quality message we're supposed to send to our Clients. What often frustrates me here at The Cove Forums are discussions about how you can get away with things and still pass an audit. Example: the 2-Page Quality Manual.... The minimalist approach. So if we agree that ISO 9001 has not lost its bite, we have to ensure that the teeth remain sharp...

Just my on a snowy Monday morning in NC.

Stijloor.

Click to expand...

Agree totally. I have been very harsh about some cove posters in the past. There may be very good reasons to go for a 2 page quality manual (for example) if the organisation wants to use it as a marketing brochurebut yes, the tone of some of the posts is (IMHO) completely wrong 'How can I exclude ...', 'What do I have to do to ...', etc., etc.

My first post on the cove was to have a go at someone looking for a checklist. I would always recommend that a quality professional takes the time to understand the requirements. A sample may be good as a starter for 10, the problem is many people want nice packaged solutions ... and quality (and life) is not like that!

The IAF and ISO work together. In fact, ISO standards are developed from IAF guidance (e.g. ISO 17021 was developed from IAF Guide 62) I believe.

"Accreditation assessments" provides oversight of the CB's, but there is nothing that makes a company get an "accredited certification" unless there is a business contract or regulation enforcing use of an accredited certificate.

The IAF focuses a great deal of attention on improving the credibilty and recognition of certificates. IAF member Accreditation Bodies can become signatories to IAF Multilateral Recognition Agreements, which enable a company that is certified under an IAF accredited certification scheme to have recognition of their certification by other participating IAF member economies. This provides the means for "Certified once, accepted everywhere". It is the key objective of the IAF. They know that adding credibility lends serves broader recognition. The IAF is comprised of AB and CB technical experts that expose areas of concern and tackle them by improving the standards under which ABs and CABs operate.

ISO and IAF work together closely together to identify and improve the credibility of all types of certification schemes, including certification of personnel, certification of product and of course certification of QMS.

The accreditation bodies themselves are Accreditation Body requirements under ISO 17011. The IAF members perform peer assessments to make sure participating AB members are abiding by the ISO standards for accreditation that the IAF jointly created with them. In some IAF schemes, additional provisions are made for regulatory authorities to activily participate in monitoring the ABs, CABs and certified companies (e.g. IAF-MDCAS).

So, the IAF and ISO are partners working to ensure a higher degree of credibility in a wide range of certification schemes. All of this provides for continuous improvement in the credibility of certification schemes and allows industry to gain a significant trade improvement by giving them a certificate that will be more widely accepted among participating economies. There are more than 50 countries participating at the IAF.

I have participated in IAF meetings since 2007 and it is beyond my capacity to grasp or explain the scope of all their activities. I find it ironic that such an incredibly important and powerful organization is so poorly understood for what it is doing to improve international trade and credibility of certification schemes. Marketing is not their strong suit, yet...

gramaley said:

I find it ironic that such an incredibly important and powerful organization is so poorly understood for what it is doing to improve international trade and credibility of certification schemes. Marketing is not their strong suit, yet...

Click to expand...

We have numerous threads that touch on the issue of the effectiveness of the accreditation process. One of the most informative threads on that topic is the Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes thread.

May I ask you: If the accreditation process ensures the integrity of the certificates issued by the CB's, why did the Automotive Industry by-passed the AB's, when they instituted the ISO/TS-16949 Certification Scheme? Any ideas?

gramaley said:

The IAF and ISO work together. In fact, ISO standards are developed from IAF guidance (e.g. ISO 17021 was developed from IAF Guide 62) I believe.

Click to expand...

Close, but it was actually ISO/IAC Guide 62, which was supplemented with IAF Guidance on the Application of ISO/IEC Guide 62.

Sidney Vianna said:

May I ask you: If the accreditation process ensures the integrity of the certificates issued by the CB's, why did the Automotive Industry by-passed the AB's, when they instituted the ISO/TS-16949 Certification Scheme? Any ideas?

Click to expand...

My impression is that there are many CB's (and AB's) that are still working under the "no child left behind" mentality.

howste said:

Close, but it was actually ISO/IAC Guide 62, which was supplemented with IAF Guidance on the Application of ISO/IEC Guide 62.

Click to expand...

Good point. Many people confuse the IAF Guidance to Guide 62 with the actual ISO/IEC Guide 62. The chronology is that ISO/IEC Guides 62 and 66 were developed a long time ago.

The IAF developed (and revised several times) the IAF Guidance Documents to ISO/IEC Guides 62 and 66.

Following ISO/IEC 17021, the IAF has decided to develop Mandatory Documents, subject of another thread here at the Cove.

howste said:

My impression is that there are many CB's (and AB's) that are still working under the "no child left behind" mentality.

Click to expand...

There are many possible answers to that question, any that I give are just personal thoughts. From what I saw of automotive industry is that those that control the scheme feel it is in better hands if it remains under their control. As you can imagine, the big car companies have a lot a stake controlling their suppliers, so why would they want to give that up.

Its currently a lot like the Food Safety Initiative at the IAF. I'm told that Walmart won't risk letting go of control over suppliers, nor should they, but if a viable scheme were created to protect the food supply at every level, wouldn't that serve the public good? Wouldn't Walmart also benefit from not having to control so many suppliers? The answer of course is a a resounding yes. And since food safety is so broad an area of influence on society, it is entirely unmanageable outside of an international approach, therefore its an ideal subject for IAF to tackle.

As you well know, very large companies with very risky stakes will always do what is in their best interest. If automotive industry feels they don't need the IAF, but the suppliers to automotive are complaining about their control, there is really nothing that can be done about it. Ultimately the supplier will always answer to the "customer", irregardless of any IAF scheme. I don't see that the "customer" (e.g. big three automotive industry) feels it would serve their best interest to relax control over their suppliers. The IAF members (many of which are European based ABs) seem less than pleased with this status quo, and there may have been more accomlished at IAF than I am aware of. I'm told that the Automotive and Aerospace sectors are served by IAF schemes for ISO 9001. So the IAF is helping suppliers and customer at some level, but perhaps not with the standard you are referring to.

gramaley said:

From what I saw of automotive industry is that those that control the scheme feel it is in better hands if it remains under their control.

Click to expand...

I would like to remind other Covers that, prior to the establishment of the IATF ISO/TS-16949 Certification Scheme, which bypasses the AB's, the US Auto Industry used to rely on an "enhanced" accreditation scheme for QS-9000. Many AB's were part of the now defunct QS-9000 accredited certification process.

I was at that March meeting when GM's representative gave their appeal to the IAF. As I said, sometimes a better way (accreditation) is still not "good enough" . It obviously didn't plug enough holes with GM. The IAF is a continuous improvement based group and they certainly add value to certification. The area of competency of auditors is a tremendous challenge since product scopes and their relationship to the QMS is hard to tackle. The beauty of ISO 13485 is that a QMS auditor can hunt through the mandated risk management file and shape their audit to particular product specific risks. This may be where ISO 9001 needs to go. From talking with the head of ISO 9001, they see this a natural evolution, but ISO 9001 does not have an equivalent ISO risk management standard, such as ISO 14971, at least not one I know would be universally accepted as a component of the next ISO 9001 scheme.