Just a few hours after I published the article about how the ANAB complaint entry about Smithers was still open, ANAB rep Bob Cruse suddenly closed it. His official reason is as follows:

SQA has provided their corrective action to the NCR raised by ANAB on this issue.  The corrective action was well thought out and provides ANAB with confidence that the changes in their process should mitigate any risk of future violations to impartiality requirements.  The NCR is now closed and verification activity will take place during their accreditation office assessment in 2015.

Like their initial response to the complaint, ANAB again provides no evidence at all in what Smithers provided, nor what “changes in their process” were made. Throughout the entire debacle, ANAB and Smithers have cited confidentiality, but have failed to provide even basic information which would not jeopardize their intellectual trade secrets in the least.

In a separate email, Cruse wrote me:

The complaint is now “Closed-with correction”.  If you feel that SQA is still carrying out activities that would lead to a perceived conflict of interest and/or an impartiality violation, please feel free to provide that information for ANAB’s review and potential action.

Full disclosure: I had written to Cruse and ANAB asking them for an update about a day before I ran yesterday’s article, under the assumption that “maybe the complaint is still open because ANAB knows Smithers is giving it a middle finger, and you are holding it open on purpose.” I thought maybe ANAB was still investigating. I knew full well this wasn’t the case, and that ANAB has merely forgotten about the complaint entirely, and that Smithers had no intention of stopping its co-marketing work with consultant John Allin. But I wanted to give ANAB a chance, anyway.

When Cruse didn’t write back, I pushed the “publish” button on the article yesterday, knowing that — since ANAB appears more obsessed with PR than actually doing its job — that would get them moving. And it did.

Now notice the willful ignorance on display in Cruse’s response. Despite me having told Cruse that Smithers and consultant John Allin were ramping up their co-marketing for 2015, and despite providing links to that material in the article, Cruse asks that I send him that information. Apparently I need to send it with a copper-etched invitation, a pillow mint and a tiny bottle of hotel whiskey or something. It’s just more evidence of the obstruction CBs and ABs put up during any complaint; you receive a vaguely worded description of why they sided with their client, and then they shove their internationally-accredited responsibilities back on the complainant.

Perhaps ANAB really doesn’t know that the other CBs are furious at the perception that Smithers is getting preferential treatment. Perhaps restricting your public appearances to safe havens like closed-door IAAR meetings and tightly controlled events like the ISO 9000 conference eventually has the effect of making ANAB believe it really answers to no one, and that everyone in the world thinks they are doing a good job. Perhaps ANAB is utterly clueless that is client CBs are so frustrated, they are considering abandoning ANAB accreditation entirely.

I dunno. But the era of ANAB operating with impunity has been over for a while, while they still think it’s 1990.

If you are company that is frustrated with ANAB’s actions, reach out to me. If you are a CB that feels it gets unfair treatment by ANAB, and that they apply the rules erratically, let me know. If you are a government contracting officer worried that invoking ANAB in federal contracts may be a violation of the FARs, get in touch. If you are a consultant who is tired of watching ANAB allow the CBs to compete with you by granting them an unfair advantage, write me.

You’re not alone, and it’s just a matter of laying down the track and then putting the train cars in the right sequence. This will all get fixed.

Advertisements
ISO 14001 Implementation