Choosing a Registrar - Registrars That "Do It All"

I disagree with Randy's assessment that the scenarios offered above are crossing the line from auditing to consulting. Consulting infers providing advice on HOW to implement processes. Just pointers and ideas on improvement opportunities do not constitute any breach of protocol, nor comprises a conflict of interest. Third-party auditors are expected (explicitly in some Schemes, such as QS-9000) to identify opportunities for improvement. This is probably how 3rd party assessors can add the most value to their relationship with the audited organization. Auditors that are not willing to add value and point areas which the organizations being assessed can improve, are doing a disservice to their clients.

In connection with Sam's post, two things:

- what do you mean by their "internal and external auditors"? They send auditors to audit YOU. How would you know their INTERNAL auditors?
- Have you asked yourself why some Registrars did not make the TS cut? Could it be a case of where there is smoke, there is fire? Why do you think a Registrar that has a pretty good size of QS-9000 certified organizations would not be in the TS IATF approved list? Remember, the IATF is basically by-passing the accreditation process and approving Registrars directly. Why do you think this happened?

And for those that realize that drawing conclusions from a single case is not statistically sound, I suggest you see the surveys available at https://www.qualitydigest.com/july00/html/survey2.html and https://www.qualitydigest.com/july01/html/results.html

Funny how a couple of Registrars were consistently listed in the low part of the scale . . . Even more interesting is the fact that the Survey is no longer being conducted. Lack of interest by readers and resistance by some registrars are the reported reasons.

Until an Arthur Andersen-like case happens in this "ISO9000-World", many decision makers will PREFER to hire a Registrar that does "it all". It is much simpler, cheaper and the results "guaranteed". As long as having a certificate is perceived as an attribute and not a variable, the path of least resistance will prosper. And then, some are amused by the fact that over 80% of the certified organizations are procrastinating well into 2003 to make the transition to the new Standard. Tsc tsc tsc.

"- what do you mean by their "internal and external auditors"? They send auditors to audit YOU. How would you know their INTERNAL auditors?"

I was referring to auditors that work full time for PJR (INTYERNAL) and those that they contract (EXTERNAL)

"- Have you asked yourself why some Registrars did not make the TS cut? Could it be a case of where there is smoke, there is fire? Why do you think a Registrar that has a pretty good size of QS-9000 certified organizations would not be in the TS IATF approved list?"

I only meant that it was unfortunate that they didn't make the cut. Why they didn't make it is subjective opinions at best.

"Remember, the IATF is basically by-passing the accreditation process and approving Registrars directly. Why do you think this happened?"

That is a good question. I could speculate, but then that would be only my opinion. The 48 CB's surely can't be doing it for the money. At last count there was approximately 100 - 150 organizations registered to TS. Thats roughly 3 per CB. And having to maintain accreditation with RAB and the IATF might prove costly, especially if the TS certification process is stretched out to 2006.
And add to that the fact that the automakers will still buy your product whether you are TS or not.
Sounds like a win-lose situation.

Sam said:

Mike S,
Thanks for the research on PJR. I've also been curious as to why they are slammed so much.

Click to expand...

Sam,

Any registrar that calls potential clients and informs them that if they buy a "package deal" of consulting and assessment services, then they are guaranteed to pass their certification audit is going to viewed as less than ethical. And PJR is guilty of this.

As long as you're happy with their services, then your only potential loss is through "guilt by association". It is possible that the validity of your certification could be questioned because of the reputation of the registrar.

I'm not questioning it, just pointing out that people who are aware of PJR's rep and who have an interest in your certification status might harbor suspicions. If this isn't a concern, then no harm no foul.

Lucinda said:

Sam,

Any registrar that calls potential clients and informs them that if they buy a "package deal" of consulting and assessment services, then they are guaranteed to pass their certification audit is going to viewed as less than ethical. And PJR is guilty of this.

Click to expand...

Lucinda,

This is a pretty serious allegation IMO. Are you SURE you're not leaving anything out -- like the requirement that the company must agree to do everything PJ tells them to do? Your statement implies that as long as I agree to pay PJ the $ they guarantee I will get a cert even if no one in my plant follows any of the procedures and "majors" are everywhere. It sort of reminds me of the offer I saw where I can get (guaranteed!) a Ph.D. in whatever I want for a certain amount of $. (Maybe I should get one real quick and beat Randy to the Ph.D. )

BTW - Any luck gettin a new job?

"Sam,

Any registrar that calls potential clients and informs them that if they buy a "package deal" of consulting and assessment services, then they are guaranteed to pass their certification audit is going to viewed as less than ethical. And PJR is guilty of this."

Are you sure that PJR is the only registrar or CB that uses this approach?

"As long as you're happy with their services, then your only potential loss is through "guilt by association". It is possible that the validity of your certification could be questioned because of the reputation of the registrar."

With price being the #1 motivator, who would question the validity of a cert.

"I'm not questioning it, just pointing out that people who are aware of PJR's rep and who have an interest in your certification status might harbor suspicions. If this isn't a concern, then no harm no foul."

No concern. PJR has the accreditations necessary to do the job they are required to do.

Apparently there is some confusion as to the role a registrar or CB plays in the registration process.
Initially the reccommendation for registration is made soley by the lead auditor. This reccommendation is made to the registrar who in turn notifys the client. If the client is dissatisfied he can request a meeting with the registrar/CB and LA. Now if the registrar/CB trys to coerce the LA to revise there report, then yes I would say there is reason for concern.
Personnally I've never heard of this situation happening.

Mike, let me preamble my comments, stating that I am speaking about the process and NOT any specific Registrar or organization. I do not have ANY objective evidence of malpractice, by any Registrar. If I did, I would bring it to the appropriate Accreditation Agencies. Having said that, any certification body that infers "guaranteed" results by using a specific consultant, including a related body is in CLEAR VIOLATION of ISO Guide 62, the basis for IAF-signatories accreditation. See below for the IAF Guidance on ISO Guide 62

" . . .G.2.1.25. Activities under clause 2.1.2.o) of ISO/IEC Guide 62 by a related body and certification / registration should never be marketed together and nothing should be stated in marketing material or presentation, written or oral, to give the impression that the two activities are linked. It is the duty of the certification / registration body to ensure that none of its clients is given the impression that the use of such activities and certification / registration would bring any business advantage to the client so that the certification / registration remains, and is seen to remain, impartial.

G.2.1.26. Nothing should be said by a certification / registration body that would suggest that certification / registration would be simpler, easier or less expensive if any specified consultancy or training services were used. . . ."

The rules are clear. What is not clear is why, after so many rumours and hearsay, no Registrar has ever been dis-accredited? The accreditation bodies continuously state that they are not provided with tangible, irrefutable evidence of wrong doing that they can use. But, if there is so much smoke and we can't find the fire, shouldn't we change our detection system?

Made my day

Sidney Vianna said:

Mike, let me preamble my comments, stating that I am speaking about the process and NOT any specific Registrar or organization. I do not have ANY objective evidence of malpractice, by any Registrar. If I did, I would bring it to the appropriate Accreditation Agencies. Having said that, any certification body that infers "guaranteed" results by using a specific consultant, including a related body is in CLEAR VIOLATION of ISO Guide 62, the basis for IAF-signatories accreditation. See below for the IAF Guidance on ISO Guide 62

" . . .G.2.1.25. Activities under clause 2.1.2.o) of ISO/IEC Guide 62 by a related body and certification / registration should never be marketed together and nothing should be stated in marketing material or presentation, written or oral, to give the impression that the two activities are linked. It is the duty of the certification / registration body to ensure that none of its clients is given the impression that the use of such activities and certification / registration would bring any business advantage to the client so that the certification / registration remains, and is seen to remain, impartial.

G.2.1.26. Nothing should be said by a certification / registration body that would suggest that certification / registration would be simpler, easier or less expensive if any specified consultancy or training services were used. . . ."

The rules are clear. What is not clear is why, after so many rumours and hearsay, no Registrar has ever been dis-accredited? The accreditation bodies continuously state that they are not provided with tangible, irrefutable evidence of wrong doing that they can use. But, if there is so much smoke and we can't find the fire, shouldn't we change our detection system?

Click to expand...

Great stuff Sidney. Are you a lawyer? Mike, I have to call this a TKO. And PJ is not the only one who does this.

Energy,

Being as dense as I am, I'm not 100% sure what you mean. Do you mean it is a TKO of PJ, guilty as charged?

Again, I've got no horse in this race, but I just wonder why, if the rules are so clear, and PJ's violation is so clear (to some) why, in this litigous society we're in today, hasn't even ONE of the many jealous competitors (who would stand to gain business) or any disgruntled employee or customer managed to prove ANY wrongdoing by PJ? So much smoke and no fire, indeed. I just don't get it (again).

I don't know if this is the right forum to mention this so I'll just go ahead with it.

We have been registered to ISO/QS-TE since October 2000. The QMS is audited semi-annually. So far I have had 4 different auditors performing the audits.

The first five audits went as expected, a couple of minors each time.

The closing meeting for the most recent audit was last night. It was a 'witness audit' - RAB auditor auditing the auditor. We came away with 2 majors and 12 minors. I am still shaking in the aftermath.

From all appearances, it was a witch hunt. The registrar in question has been discussed previously (I don't want to be held libel - seriously, I don't).

Some of the minors were legit, a contract review was not completed satisfactorily, and a piece of material in the shop wasn't tagged adequately. But both majors were written on 4.1 and 4.2!!! Complete breakdown of the system!

I am just beside myself right now...chuck the whole ISO/QS system...turn in my stack of NCRs...head into the mountains and become the 21st century version of Jeremiah Johnson.

Fortunately, my company is standing beside me, very supportive people. When my BP drops below 200/150 I'll begin drafting a customer satisfaction survey to our registrar and cc: RAB

-------

Creme de la creme....guess who just called offering consultation services? And it's not even 9:00 in the morning here!

What a racket these guys are in...self-perpetuating business...they're paid to create the problems and paid to fix the problems they have created.

-------

I could sure use some words of encouragement, positive strokes, slap in the face, a bucket of cold water reality, anything that will get me out this funk.

Thanks for your ear.

I would relaly like to know what recourse I may have...can these NCRs be challenged? Appealed?

Would a letter to the RAB/IAOB/IRCA etc. be of any good?

Thanks again.

I think it was just a coincidence...I hope it was coincidence...

I can't believe a registrar/consultant would be obvious. Or am I being naive?

PS: I'm looking for a new registrar as of this morning....any suggestions (QS/TE)?