This week I have been in Japan chairing IRCA’s International Forum 2010. This was the ninth year of the increasingly popular forum in which IRCA auditors and others involved in the delivery of accredited certification in the Japan network discuss updates and receive information about what’s happening in the international scene.
The event explored the theme of how auditors and third-party certification bodies can and must improve the effectiveness of management systems auditing. This is a topic that has been the subject of much debate recently, not just in Japan, and is very much in the minds of those tasked with updating ISO 19011 and ISO 17021, the two standards that underpin auditing practices.
It is clear to the industry that credibility of certification is an issue. Confidence in certification has been drifting for years and during the recession organisations are inclined to see this as a “nice to have” rather than a vital component of business success. This is a huge risk for an industry already struggling with oversupply and slim margins.
Many blame the unsympathetic application by the accreditation bodies of their rules. Others cite the tick-box approach adopted by many auditors and organisations seeking certification as the reason behind some business leaders’ belief that there is little to be gained from the process.
Whatever the cause, we need to change. Effective auditing is a practice that all organisations should adopt in order to be sustainable, whether carried out in order to gain certification to a standard or to allow an organisation to assess its own performance. Without a mechanism that allows systematic, objective and critical assessment and provides top management with valid information organisations are ignoring a valuable control.
To prosper, or maybe just to survive, all those involved in the accreditation and certification infrastructure must provide value for money. Audits must provide an assessment of an organisation’s processes against its stated business objectives rather than just auditing for compliance. Auditors and those managing them must be competent and apply the range of skills required to assess the entire workings of a business, starting with top management. The focus needs to be on demonstrating to businesses that the benefits that can be gained through intelligent auditing far outweigh any costs or doubts.
A speaker at the forum from Canon said: “We don’t use third-party certification as a means to improve, it’s not nearly rigorous enough. Instead we rely on a system of internal audit.” It was clear he and his organisation take quality very seriously indeed. Canon is a serious player internationally and its opinions on what adds value and what doesn’t shouldn’t be ignored.
Statements of no confidence in accredited certification mustn’t be discounted. Customers such as Canon who are prepared to give us their opinions, especially if they are critical, are like gold. We ignore them at our peril.
By Simon Feary, CQI CEO
17 June 2010
2 Comments
Over the last three decades I have hosted audits from every reputable, and a few less reputable, certification bodies.
As the years have passed I have noted, as you describe, an increasingly steep decline in the value of their third party auditing.
When will we, as an industry, realize that if you pay the piper you can choose the tune?
The setting up of an independent body to carry out such audits that depend upon the Exchequer for their patronage instead of their erstwhile clients is the only way forward.
Perhaps this is a role the CQI could take up?
I agree entirely with the article and comment. I think the problem is about personnel competency and lack of time allocated to complete the audit. I have taken some radical steps with my larger clients by taking ownership of the project risk registers and making them the basis for the internal audit schedule. This process meant you have project QA/Risk engineers who are at the front end of any problem not auditing retrospectively.
With smaller SME type clients I have introduced a remote audit process after training specific QA assistants. This reduced the site visit time and gave the auditor base information to target company objectives and continuous improvement. The current process needs to change.