2nd December 2011, 02:06 PM
Seems to me, after a admittedly brief look at the links (by the way the link to the guidance notes didn't work for me), that the RO system is not primarily designed as a system of quality assurance.
It reads more like a deal between the company and the institute where the company can use the IFA logo on stuff and call themselves a RO if they pay a fee, have members in the IFA, agree to receive junk mail and pass an initial 'interview'.
Real accreditation involve audits. Usually an initial audit, follow-up audits, self-audits and regular external audits etc.
Not a system of 'oh we might investigate the company if someone complains enough.'
So for me (unless I missed something)....thats a big NO to RO.
Make the system better and more fit for purpose and I may reconsider.
It reads more like a deal between the company and the institute where the company can use the IFA logo on stuff and call themselves a RO if they pay a fee, have members in the IFA, agree to receive junk mail and pass an initial 'interview'.
Real accreditation involve audits. Usually an initial audit, follow-up audits, self-audits and regular external audits etc.
Not a system of 'oh we might investigate the company if someone complains enough.'
So for me (unless I missed something)....thats a big NO to RO.
Make the system better and more fit for purpose and I may reconsider.