Can QMS auditors learn anything from our financial counterparts?
By Batalas

The scandals that have beset the US economy have shown auditing to be a less than perfect practice. It seems the lure of repeat business, and in some cases substantial consulting fees, has swayed many professional auditors to blatantly ignore the obvious irregularities in company accounts.

Could we see the re-introduction of supplier audits, the proliferation of customer specific specifications, and the eventual demise of the ISO9001 standard?

But what has this to do with QMS auditing? Surely QMS auditing is not in the same league as financial auditing; the economy is not going to crash as a result of a few poorly performed QMS audits. Whilst this is true, ISO9001: 2000 is a form of international currency, traded by 500,000 companies world-wide. Poorly performed audits, particularly by third party certification bodies, will however have a significant impact on confidence throughout the supply chain. Could we see the re-introduction of supplier audits, the proliferation of customer specific specifications, and the eventual demise of the ISO9001 standard? Whilst most quality professionals currently see this as fantasy, it is a possibility. To ensure that it does not happen the quality profession, quality managers, consultants and the accreditation /certification bodies need to heed the lessons from our financial colleagues.

Certificates should have to be won through merit, and, if necessary, lost - an all too rare occurrence!

Two Key Lessons to be Learnt

1. Add value to the audit process
This should not be achieved by offering consultancy advice, whether it is free or not. The new ‘2000 standard provides the opportunity for many different solutions and there will be very few auditors with the broad range of business experience to offer advice.

The ‘added value’ aspect of auditing to the new standard relies more on confidence that those who have the certificate are justified recipients, and that means auditors being prepared to ‘cull’ those who do not. Every organisation that receives the certificate when they know they should not have, weakens the credibility of the standard, and the certification process itself.

Also, with the rise of the non-accredited certification bodies, many of whom guarantee registration within a totally unrealistic 30-day timescale, accredited certification bodies need to increase their credibility. The way to increase credibility is to provide organisations with competent auditors who understand business issues and how the requirements of the standard relates to them.

Organisations who pay lip service to the requirements for continual improvement, customer satisfaction and top management commitment should not be allowed to maintain their registration.

2. It’s not too late to reverse past failings
Undoubtedly, many organisations have quality management systems which do not meet the requirements of ISO9001: 2000, and yet they have a certificate of registration! We know this to be the case as many of our clients, and a substantial proportion of students attending our training courses, were surprised to be given certificates by their certification body, when they know their systems fall well short of the requirements of the standard. Well, there are mitigating circumstances during the transition period; auditors, like their clients, are feeling their way in interpreting the standard.

Unlike the ’94 standard gaining the certificate is probably less onerous than maintaining the QMS to meet the requirements of the standard. And here lies the opportunity for certification bodies to improve the credibility of the certification process, and the value they add.

Should organisations who pay lip service to the requirements for continual improvement, customer satisfaction and top management commitment be allowed to maintain their registration? Let’s hope they don’t.

top of page