Hello Allan
....the reactions of all the many senior managers I have interviewed on the subject of internal quality auditing vary from boredom through resignation to simmering anger. It seems it's only the 'quality experts' who think that such techniques are helpful.
Some companies in the UK (Yell is a prime example) have negotiated with their ISO 9001 certification bodies to remove internal auditing as a requirement because it had no business advantage.
I figured if you of all people don't know of any success stories, perhaps there are none! Give me a call. perhaps?
rgds Jim
+44 118 987 5120
+44 77 88 6666 08
Skype: jim.wade
PS - thanks for the history lesson - I stand corrected.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It would seem to me if any registrar is now to give dispensation to ANY firm that it need not perform internal audits simply because of some sophisticated argument put forth by the auditee that it "has no business advantage" other firms may as well do the same and cite precedent. Of course, neither I nor any other quality professional would accept such an argument but it would seem certain registrars do not aspire to the same professional standards (no pun intended) in their pursuit of profit.
When a registrar does not properly do the the job with which they are entrusted, the certificate issued bears false witness about compliance with the associated standard. When the registrar concerned is not brought to task by UKAS/ RABQSA or whoever has accredited that registrar, the entire credibility of all registrars of RABQSA/UKAS et al and the ISO 9K certification business vanishes: no certificate is then worth anything as the innocent reader cannot be ASSURED the registrant actually complies with the standard and that some essential part of the standard has not been waived (arbitrarily) by the registrar.
It is not within the gift of registrars to eliminate the requirement for compliance with any part of the standard. Their ISO 9K certificates are supposed to be warrants of compliance.
One of the original justifications for ISO 9K registration was supposed to be that it would eliminate the need for multiple assessment of firms by their customers. The registrars effectively said "You can trust us to act in your interest."
As we all know from the various horror stories that have plagued the quality profession concerning the conduct of registrars from the inception of their "mandate", such trust has been abused. It is small wonder, then, that certain major corporations are returning to undertaking their own supplier audits. (I am informed Ford is one such, but that has not beeen confirmed to me.) But, if Mr Wade's report concerning Yell is correct even only in this single instance, registrar conduct and that of the accrediting bodies goes beyond toleration.
This is not a question about whether one agress or not with the idea of ISO 9K: it permeates many facets of quality and safety itself.
I worked in hazardous industries (nuclear and offshore oil) and consulted in others (food, pharmaceuticals etc) where safety was THE prime concern. Product and process standards are written in those sectors to safeguard the health and safety of the consumer, the user, the employees and bystanders. I cannot conceive of any auditor I ever worked with in any of those fields even contemplating waiving a requirement for compliance with a standard affecting product or personal safety. And, every one of them knew well the embracing quality standard, be it ANSI N 45.2, 10CFR AppB, API, ASME III, ASME VIII, (whatever) existed to ensure there was a QMS that would ensure such standards were complied with.
A central underpinning was always the need for internal audits to act as management early warning system to detect a breakdown in the QMS that might lead to non-compliance with such standards and a risk to health and safety.
In doing their jobs and also rooting out avoidale costs the auditors of years ago built the reputation of auditing as a valuable and beneficial management tool. Though that tool did not originally appear in Joseph Juran's QC Handbooks ( a point I personally brought to his attention in certain correspondence we exchanged, still in my possession) it did appear in his 4th edition.
Those auditors of past days built the credibility of internal auditing (I am proud to say I was one). And we did it long before ISO 9K existed or was even a gleam in Derek Spickernel's eye. Long before BSI, LROS and many other registrars were ever engaged in auditing. Long before the idea of an RABQSA/UKAS was even mooted.
If these reports are true that registrars are signing certificates attesting to compliance with ISO 9K knowing they are waiving a major part of the basis for ASSURANCE they are destroying the hard work of those early auditors; they are destroying an essential foundation of effective QMS and, according to the actual product or service involved, they may well be putting at risk the health and safety of people.
I have no way of knowing how far this rot has gone. But it has gone too far.
Do I expect the accrediting bodies to act? I do not know. But, let us remember the recent Ford Explorer rollover tragedies in which no registrar was punished. Let us also consider the recent problems of the pharmaceutical industry. Something is very wrong with auditing (users of the Saferpack forum may have read my article posted by Simon, in which I argue for a change to the business model of "assessments" etc).
It is not sufficient to train registrar auditors in the words of ISO 9K. They need also to understand WHY quality standards are constructed as they are and what are the underpinnings of the standards for providing ASSURANCE.
If a registrar auditor can be persuaded to waive the requirement for internal auditing, that auditor is incompetent. The registrar that engages his/ her services has a set of controls that are fundamentally flawed. That registrar is in breach of trust in issuing the ISO 9K certificate. Every one deserves to be summarily deregistered/ de-accredited - THROWN OUT of the quality profession.
I want to know who the registrar is. And, I want to see the accrediting body IMMEDIATELY revoking EVERY certificate that registrar has issued and require the miscreant registrar to pay for the costs of re-auditing EVERY ONE of the affected firms - by a different registrar. I want the accrediting body to require every one of the registrars auditors to be retrained and for their on-the-job conduct and competence to be assessed such that they might then be employable once more. Naturally the registrar concerned must pay for that entire effort. And on behalf of the quality profession I offer my services to perform that on-the-job assessment of the individual registrars: if they could reach the standards of conduct I set and expect of auditors I will be pleased.
Over the years various registrars and parties interested in promoting ISO 9K have deployed crafty CYA's. The most incredible assertion (that has thankfully not been so apparent in recent years) was that possession of a certificate did not guarantee product quality. When that outrageous stuff appeared I asked if the assessed QMS does not safeguard the product, what purpose has it at all? NEVER LOSE SIGHT OF THE PRODUCT is one of my more noted sayings. But, it seemed registrars were losing sight of what it was all about. And, if these reports are true, of waiving essential parts of an effective QMS (viz internal auditing) the registrars have lost sight of everything. If RABQSA/ UKAS etc fail to act on the report I cited, it is time the whole thing is either fixed or closed.
There are probably certain contributors to this Forum who do work for registrars: I would hope they would not want to be associated with registrars who conduct themselves in the manner described. I would also hope the responsible elements within the registration circus will demand the kind of sanctions I have described. If not, guilty by association. Or, as President Regan quoted, "For evil to succeed, it remains that good men do nothing".
But, then, as an old auditor I challenge them with the Missouri wisdom: SHOW ME.