Scott #5A Or Scott #9?

It is silly to think that humans will not make mistakes. So you do not invest time trying to prevent all mistakes, you invest time in solid processes and continuous improvement.

Typical corrective action process is as follows;
1. Get your head wrapped around the problem including
2. Understanding how the process is supposed to work
3. Get your head wrapped around the scope of the issue
4. Containment actions
5. ID of the root cause
6. Implement corrective action
7. Audit and monitor corrective action

But I think that this process rarely sees light of day publicly in many organizations; this info is often considered proprietary. This process tends to fall into the ISO/MilSpec realm so if the organization has these kinds of QA certifications you can feel somewhat assured that they being followed.

Continuous improvement activities like QA audits are sometimes met with groans within organizations when in fact they are actual opportunities to be become a better company. QA is actually a cultural thing and quality cannot be 'inspected in', you have to figure out how to get the employees to buy into the idea of quality and not just shove it down their throats with inspections or by hanging some signs on the wall.
Don

There are a number of previous threads similar to this. This one was interesting:

https://goscf.com/t/76908&whichpage=1

Don - You hit the nail on the head when you spoke of quality being a cultural thing, and I think that the motivation to make quality the overriding culture is what is lacking in all of the expertizing organizations. I won't make many friends saying it, but unfortunately, expertizing is about making money - period. If a better quality certificate would make any of the organizations more money, they would probably produce it.

The fact is that an extensive high quality report and detailed opinion is not what is rewarded. Most dealers and auction houses want as little information on the cert as possible, and the expertizing entities comply. Fast turn around, high grades, and disregard for very minor faults are the "qualities" dealers will reward. The reality is that experienced dealers often don't even need someone elses expert opinion - in most cases they know exactly what they are selling and all they want is a "clean" cert. More information just muddies the water.

As you can see, I'm implying that dealers are as responsible as the expertizing entities for the quality of true expertizing that we are getting. If they demanded more, we might get more.

In the meantime, I feel like rogdcam - buy only from reputable dealers and auction houses whom you would trust to recognize this stamp for what it was and would never try to sell it.

This is just another glaring example of how knowledge is power.

Stallzer: agree with you completely. Yet, who amongst us would aver that the signer of the certificate in question, Mr Shoemaker, does NOT have the knowledge?

Okay.
Lots of thoughts included, which is good. First up.... I use the Doporto website often, and he issues certificates. Is it all about money? I would disagree. I have had dealings with Mr. W.T. Crowe and emails between us over his "findings" and he has patiently explained what he saw, unassailable as I far as I can discretain. I think there are many in this line of work who love stamps and work in this endeavor for that reason.
In your first post Don you mentioned "divisiveness" as as a reason for many things. I think that widgloe was right in relating it more to money. Recently in the WSJ ran a article how Rupert Murdoch wanted to rein in Fox but was restrained by the money Fox returns. It appears to me that no rule applies, but that we need to apply our knowledge to individual situations. ... I am probably wrong.
Regards m
I prefer a Doporto cert to all the rest when it comes to his expertise
Edited for length and clarity

GMC,
My first post was an effort to prevent the thread from going off the rails and turning into a PSAG flame fest.

Humans make mistakes. Leaders make mistakes. If mistakes are not recognized and acknowledged then the mistakes are likely to be repeated. So good leaders acknowledge the mistakes and work toward making improvements so they are not repeated. I think that this is the value of this thread and did not want folks to lose sight of that.
Don

"To err is human"
I agree and thank you for clarification.
Regards m