The IRCA interview
Approaching the third anniversary of the issue of ISO 17024, the accreditation standard intended for certification bodies who certify persons, INform quizzes IRCA director Simon Feary about the standard and the effects it has had and will continue to have on auditor certification
ISO 17024 has now been in circulation for three years. Remind us of the major differences between ISO 17024 and EN 45013, the standard it replaced.
There are some significant differences, the most obvious of which is that ISO 17024 goes into some detail on competence, defining this in terms of knowledge, skills and personal attributes. It also places emphasis on the examination of competence, with the requirement that any examination must be both independent and valid. EN 45013 hardly mentions competence, instead focusing on structural issues. And competence, finally, has a definition: ‘The demonstrated ability to apply knowledge and/or skills and, where relevant, demonstrated personal attributes.’
ISO 17024 is a far better document than EN 45013, but that is to be expected. A lot of effort went into producing it, and indeed into producing the accompanying IAF guidance, GD24.
After three years in use, and considering the hype associated with the standard both before and at issue, we would expect the take up to be considerable. Has this happened?
It’s true there was a fair amount of hype and the standard was eagerly awaited in many quarters, but I suspect the expectation was that it would address all the areas not addressed, or poorly addressed in EN 45013 and other standards it replaced. In many instances this has happened, and ISO 17024 is used very effectively. In North America there are over a million individuals who can claim their certification is accredited to ISO 17024. This involves sectors such as the medical profession, banking and IT – Microsoft and Cisco to name two converts to the standard. And in the UK, we have range of applications: gas fitters, electricians, welders. But let’s not forget that here in the UK, ISO 17024 wasn’t much of a choice for those organizations certified to EN 45013. It was a case of UKAS saying: ‘We’re withdrawing EN 45013, comply with ISO 17024 or you lose your accreditation’.
Has the standard generated any significant improvements?
In many contexts I am sure it has. Both within the UK and internationally. But so far, I would say that the management systems context has yet to see much benefit.
Let’s talk about management system auditors, the sector relevant to IRCA.
In this context, ISO 17024 has created more issues than it has solved. In its more rigorous interpretation, the standard presents as a major difference to the historical, qualification based model for determining competence. ISO 17024 requires that all competences must be defined, which means the knowledge, the skills and the personal attributes specific to each programme. Validity of examination must be demonstrated, probably through statistical means.
Examination must be independent which means not even a hint of examiner involvement in any pre-exam activity. All good, honest stuff - in concept. And for industries that agree and see benefits from this approach and are prepared to pay for it, a really watertight approach. But in practice, the management systems certification industry doesn’t see this rigour as necessary, doesn’t want it, can’t pass the costs on and certainly is not prepared to bear those costs itself.
If all accreditation bodies adopted this rigorous interpretation, then the difficulties, although real, would not be so great. But most have not and this has caused real problems.
Tell us about those problems.
The problem is a lack of consistency. Inconsistency of interpretation by the accreditation bodies which results in inconsistency of implementation by the auditor certification bodies. Inconsistency is not necessarily a problem when the programme is nationally based, ie where the individuals who are certified don’t operate out of or seek to be recognized out of that country. But it is a real problem if, as in management systems auditor certification, the output of the accredited certification process is intended to be recognized globally. Right now we have an increasing number of accreditation bodies accrediting to ISO 17024 and within this number there is a broad range of interpretation. Ranging from the very rigorous, to the farcical. But the marketplace recognizes accreditation as a label, and doesn’t tend to distinguish between who awards the label. Accreditation to ISO 17024 at the moment is a lottery, and as a personnel certification body, your chances of success are determined by location.
But hasn’t the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) addressed the potential for inconsistency by producing guidance for accreditation bodies on how they interpret ISO 17024?
Yes, but it isn’t working effectively, certainly not within the management systems auditor context. Either the drafting was not sufficiently clear or many of the accreditation bodies simply are not too particular about following it closely. But whatever the reason, significant variation is occurring.
IAF have an multi-lateral agreement (MLA) designed to ensure consistency for the quality management system, environmental management systems and product accreditations. Why can’t this be extended to cover persons?
No valid reason that we can think of, and I feel sure an IAF MLA would address most of the consistency issues, although not all. MLAs are great in concept, but in practice they are difficult to operate effectively. Some would say the operation of the current IAF MLAs leaves something to be desired, but whatever the merits of that opinion, I think an MLA operating imperfectly would be much preferable to the situation we have now where there is an absence of effective control.
Unfortunately, IAF haven’t shown much interest in extending the MLA. I think they view personnel certification as a distraction and are inclined to ignore it if they can. This is a real problem for the International Personnel Certification Association (IPC) as it factored in an IAF MLA extension to include ISO 17024 as the primary means of calibration and control when we agreed to make accreditation to ISO 17024 one of the basic requirements of IPC membership. Having no MLA means we have no basis for ensuring the equivalence of our certification programmes, which threatens the whole concept of auditor certification as a consistent global entity.
So if the IAF isn’t going to help, what’s the next step?
We have to do something as it isn’t in anyone’s interest to allow the current situation to persist. If we cannot factor in consistency through IAF, then maybe we need to petition IPC to rethink its strategy. IPC, with its international membership and influence, is a real, and perhaps only viable, alternative to the IAF.
Are we talking about a return to peer evaluation?
Hopefully not. I think it would be a mistake to return to peer evaluation. Under the International Auditor and Training Certification Association (IATCA) banner we were not able to make it work. But there is an alternative and that is for IPC to offer approval. IPC has evolved considerably since the IATCA days and now has an efficient and stable executive, in marked contrast to what we endured under IATCA, so a third party approval process that incorporates both credibility and integrity is a feasible option.
Isn’t approval another name for accreditation?
The intent is consistency and confidence in our certification outcome, so in that respect I see little difference from accreditation. But I would hesitate to call it accreditation, at least not until such time as IPC has implemented and complied with ISO 17011. As a base requirement IPC would need a separation of the approval mechanism from the association interests, but it is definitely possible and frankly, if the IAF are inclined to do nothing then we, the personnel certification bodies, will need to make our own solution.
So in effect you would be offering an alternative to IAF accreditation?
Not so much an alternative. In the longer term I would anticipate the two would operate together. A national accreditation supplemented with IPC approval would provide the credibility and consistency global personnel certification bodies urgently seek. But it may become interesting if IPC were to refuse approval to a member organization that was already accredited. But given the extent of variation and the apparent lack of understanding of ISO 17024 demonstrated by some accreditation bodies, this occurrence is almost a certainty rather than a possibility. But I see the possibility that over time the IPC approval provides the market with the credibility it needs and accreditation for personnel certification bodies would become irrelevant. Within the management systems auditor context, at least.
How will the IAF feel about having this competition?
Competition is a fact of life, no organization operating outside government is free of it and indeed it provides most organizations with the motivation to continually improve. And from our own experience, IRCA has benefited immensely from competition. But if this option was to be pursued then I would prefer to regard it not as competition, but as complementary. I don’t anticipate that IPC sees any logic in going head to head with IAF. But there is a serious issue that threatens our business and if the IAF is unwilling to sort it out then we will have to. I don’t think any reasonable person would have a problem with that rationale.