The problem lies not with the Standard which is generally excellent but with the certification industry it has spawned.

This industry is totally out of control and only a dramatic change can overcome its problems. As it stands it is easy to see how the certification industry adds cost, it is difficult to see how it also adds value whilst in its present state.

At one time, all certification bodies were regulated by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS). Unfortunately, in the early 1990s, one certification body began offering ISO 9000 certification outside the control of UKAS. When this was challenged with the DTI, the response from the DTI was that it was not illegal to do so. Immediately, this removed all power from UKAS. In 2003 UKAS claimed that more than 40% of all ISO 9001:2000 certificates were awarded by certification providers who are completely independent of the original control process. This statistic is likely to have grown significantly since then. Of the remainder, the lack of any overall industry control has resulted in even those certification bodies that have remained loyal to UKAS registration to flout the rules in their own interest. It is hard to blame them when their competitors are doing the same.

Originally when the industry had integrity it was founded on good principles.

Auditor Training

Auditors would be qualified to a set of standards laid down by IRCA (The International Register of Certified Auditors). This training was conducted by organisations that were not connected to the certification body that employed them. This way, the training was more or less consistent across the industry.

Unfortunately, today, not only do the certification bodies train their own auditors (at least one assumes that they do), they decide their own interpretation of the standards and this can vary considerably not only from one organisation to another but in some cases from different teams in the same organisation.

Originally, It was not acceptable for an organisation that conducted ISO training or which offered preparatory training for a client to also be its certification body because its integrity would be compromised. Today, and again, thanks to the DTI decision, that happens blatantly and both training and consultancy services are offered by organisations with the same names and logos as the auditing services they provide and in many cases share the same offices. Any split in the management of the two activities is therefore indistinguishable to members of the public and is probably non existent.

The solution

It would appear that this is an irretrievable situation but it is not. There are several possible solutions.

1. A dramatic improvement would require the assistance of some of the large procurement organisations such as the NHS, MOD, and the Utilities etc.

They should consider the following actions:

Accredit certification bodies themselves. Invite tenders from existing certification bodies to be qualified to be accepted for the audit of its suppliers.

Certification bodies would only be acceptable if they could satisfy the following requirements:

a. All of its auditors must be IRCA registered and trained by a training organisation which is totally independent from the certification body.

b. That any preparatory consulting and training of the auditee organisation is conducted by an organisation which is also totally independent of the certification body in every respect and that no verbal or documented relationship exists between them.

c. Any certification body invited to conduct an audit where such a relationship exists should be obligated to declare it.

d. The procurement body itself conducts searching periodic audits of every certification body that it has approved to ensure the maintenance of the highest possible standards. These audits must be searching and thorough regardless of any apparent credibility of that body in the national or international marketplace. All of them should be considered equally likely to bend the rules given the opportunity.

.

2. A second alternative might be to establish a system in which registered certification bodies should not be hired directly by the client. Instead, the client might apply to UKAS or some other controlling body which then offers the work to one of its registered organisations on a Rota basis. The organisation seeking certification pays the controlling body which then pays the certification body. The remainder of the rules would be the same as in 1) above.

This would not of itself prevent the maverick organisations from continuing but this practice would probably shrink rapidly especially if the clients of the registered bodies were allowed to state the integrity of their certificate on their advertising materials. The market would probably then force the process.

Obviously, the large procurement organisations could force the pace of this development if just one or two of the largest of these were to operate this policy. However, even the smaller procurement bodies or anyone with a supply chain that is reasonably dependent on this customer could operate such a policy now if it could find certification bodies that applied these rules but these would be hard to find.

Potentially the large procurement organisations could have far more influence on the certification industry than the Accreditation bodies because they would control the industry through its pocket. This is something that the Accreditation bodies and their international counterparts can no longer do, thanks to the DTI decision all those years ago.

If actions were taken along these lines then perhaps integrity and respect would return to the Quality profession and our industries profit from lower costs, improved customer relations, increased market share and higher profitability. After all, was not this the purpose of ISO 9001:2000 and not forgetting ISO 9004:2000 in order to keep improving?

David Hutchins can be contacted through the 'CONTACT US' box at the top right hand corner of this page

This article posted on Friday 10th March 2006