[UPDATED] The Sound of Silence: Update on the Alcumus ISOQAR Complaint

[UPDATED 26 May 2016: see below.]

If you’re a Buddhist and looking for a calm, silent space in which to meditate, there is no quieter place on earth than the place where complaints against ISO 9001 certification bodies go. After filing one, you often experience the most all-encompassing silence you’ve ever experienced.

And so we’re one month into the complaint against Alcumus ISOQAR, which alleged their “Diamond” consultant referral program was a violation of about a million different ISO accreditation rules, because it involved them rewarding consultants with free stuff and free booze in exchange for certification contracts. In response to which, Alcumus GM Steve Stubley promptly cut off all communication, saying that “confidentiality” prevented him from discussing the complaint with .. you know .. the complainant. Yes, that’s yet another violation, but we’ll tackle these one at a time. Apparently Stubley is sticking to his guns, if not his ethics, since we really haven’t heard a peep since then.

Meanwhile across town, Nigel Overton at UKAS [see update below] has been kept in the loop, but it’s been a becalmed sea of nothingness coming from their office, too. That’s not surprising; back when we filed that huge complaint against BSI alleging its Entropy software violated the ISO prohibitions against CBs providing consulting solutions, UKAS sided with BSI and said that, no, a CB can provide software for a QMS and it’s just fine. At that time, Overton’s group did throw us a bone, saying that there were some concerns in the way BSI marketed Entropy, and they would therefore require BSI to make appropriate changes to said marketing. Of course nothing of the sort happened. In fact, a quick glance shows that BSI’s marketing of Entropy is much, much worse, still deeply linked with its certification services, and still sold as part of certification contracts. In fact, now BSI just comes out and says it:

[Entropy] has been designed to help with audits and certification against standards, such as: ISO 9001, ISO 14001, and other international requirements.

(Emphasis added.)

It could well be that we are inadvertently insulting the physically handicapped, in that perhaps Overton is legally blind and can’t read the big giant words printed in 15 point font right on BSI’s international, public webpage. If so, we apologize. But I’m suspect he’s not blind, until it suits him to be so.

So it’s likely a foregone conclusion that Alcumus ISOQAR will also emerge unscathed from their bubbling bath in the brew of conflicts of interest seasoned with pure, incestuous greed. So long at they keep paying UKAS, it’s not like Overton will do anything about it. Perhaps they can kill two birds with one stone, and give the leftover champagne to Overton.

Meaning, yet again, ISO 9001 is only what you make it. The certification scheme is hopelessly corrupt, and instead you have to drag the benefits out of the standard by their hair, all while ignoring the noise issued by the surrounding certification and accreditation bodies. If you have to get certified, of course pursue it, if only to keep your customers happy or to win those government contracts; but don’t expect the certification to grant your company any magical powers. Such brujería is reserved for the CBs themselves, who can make conflicts of interest and violations of international accreditation standards disappear with just a wave of their hand!

NOTE: Alcumus ISOQAR is unrelated to the US-based registrar ISOQAR, Inc. from Bonita Springs FL; the two are wholly separate companies that happen to share a similar name. 

UPDATE 26 May 2016: UKAS representative Jackie Burton has informed me that Nigel Overton is has “taken up a new position within UKAS and as such is no longer the main contact for accredited certification activities.” Ms. Burton also reiterated UKAS defense of BSI, saying:

It remains the UKAS position as communicated in our letter dated 29 July 2014 that the Entropy software does not constitute consultancy. In reviewing the information available via the link provided we have however,  determined that there may be an issue (based on the extract of the contract  provided) which requires review as there appears to be joint marketing taking place.  As a consequence we will be reviewing this further with BSI.

Anyone wanting to write to UKAS on the matter are directed to reference “feedback reference number 415394.” If you’ve found BSI auditors assessing QMS software as part of their ISO 9001 certification audits, even if that means simple Excel or Word forms, then you should file a complaint referencing that number. UKAS and BSI maintain that BSI does not audit Entropy as part of its audits, so therefore it’s giving Entropy users preferential treatment not afforded to clients who use non-BSI products.