I have found this forum very helpful in the past. Now I am hoping that the members can help me answer these questions. If a company becomes ISO certified and the owners decide to sell it as a franchise (with the ISO certification as a selling point): 1) would the franchises automatically be ISO certified? 2) Would/Should they be required to become ISO certified? This is going to be an ongoing discussion in our organization and I would appreciate some input from experts. Does anyone know of any companies who have already done this? Thanks, Evanbron

If a company becomes ISO certified and the owners decide to sell it as a franchise (with the ISO certification as a selling point): 1) would the franchises automatically be ISO certified?No 2) Would/Should they be required to become ISO certified?They would not be required to be certified to ISO 9001, but if the franchiser required the franchisees to be ISO 9001 certified, it could enhance the former's confidence on the latter's ability to follow the franchised processes, something that is normally very critical in the franchising world. This is an interesting topic. Keep the discussion going. This is going to be an ongoing discussion in our organization and I would appreciate some input from experts. Does anyone know of any companies who have already done this? Thanks, EvanbronI know that McDonalds in Poland and Finland were ISO 14001 certified, not ISO 9001, though.

Generally, registration to an International Standard is site-specific, which would preclude franchisees from doing anything more than claiming bragging rights besed on the franchisor's registration. Alternately, for a fee for each individual franchisee, the individual franchise sites might be audited and added to the site listing for which the Registration Certificate applies.

Generally, registration to an International Standard is site-specific, which would preclude franchisees from doing anything more than claiming bragging rights besed on the franchisor's registration. Alternately, for a fee for each individual franchisee, the individual franchise sites might be audited and added to the site listing for which the Registration Certificate applies.That is correct. And, depending on the number of franchised operations, a sampling process can be deployed to certify all the franchises without having to actually audit all of them. Analogous to sampling inspection, you accept the whole lot by inspecting a representative sample only.

That is correct. And, depending on the number of franchised operations, a sampling process can be deployed to certify all the franchises without having to actually audit all of them. Analogous to sampling inspection, you accept the whole lot by inspecting a representative sample only.
Straying a bit :topic: , but...
With manufactured parts, one of the underlying assumptions that justifies sampling is that the parts were created as part of a reasonably homogeneous stream subject to only random variation. It doesn't seem to me that the same assumptions may be made in the case of franchised business units. Although there are some cases of remarkable homogeneity, as in the case of say, McDonald's or Subway, the problem of non-random variation (that could affect compliance with a standard) is still a potential problem.

Although there are some cases of remarkable homogeneity, as in the case of say, McDonald's or Subway, the problem of non-random variation (that could affect compliance with a standard) is still a potential problem.
Presumably the remarkable homogeneity is the result of a documented system of rules imposed by the franchiser. The rules intended result is that each franchisee would provide their product and service in the same way, and so that each franchisee's quality system meets the requirements of ISO 9001-2000. Any variation in application of the rules would be random so sampling would be justified.

Also, the franchiser would have to verify the output of their process (establishing the franchisee rules). They would have to ensure that all franchisees were meeting their obligations.

It still doesn't seem right to me that a business, even a franchisee, could hang a sign in their window saying they are certified to ISO 9001-2000 when they haven't ever been audited.

It still doesn't seem right to me that a business, even a franchisee, could hang a sign in their window saying they are certified to ISO 9001-2000 when they haven't ever been audited.
Why not? Even in a single site audit, not every single process is audited, certainly not with forensic zeal, yet the organization and all its parts wave the ISO banner. We are also aware the audit is merely a "snapshot" versus a "continuing movie" and anecdotal evidence abounds that registered organizations have strayed far from the Standard and still retain the registration in between surveillance audits.

I agree with most of what has been said with the exception that franchises could easily go under the same cert. And they do. As long as there is a central point of business.

I worked for a printing company that had two facilities, 30 miles apart. Facility 1 did digital print and digital print only. Small, IBM digital printing. 6 presses in about 2500 sq ft.

Facility 2 did offset and other types of print. HUGE industrial type equipment used by magazine and newspaper printers. 6 printers would take 10 times the space. The two had no more to do with each other than building toy airplanes and jumbo jets would.

There was no homogeneity whatsoever.

They were under the same cert.

The Registrar was one of the top 3 British based firms.

If you pay them, they will do it.

Carl-

Thanks for all the input. This company is a "Web Design" group. We haven't even figured out what all needs to be done to get them certified. We have the long range goal, but we are struggling with how to get there from here.
Evanbron

. . .anecdotal evidence abounds that registered organizations have strayed far from the Standard and still retain the registration in between surveillance audits.
You're basically saying that it doesn't matter because the whole certification process is bogus anyway. If the audits were frequent, legit and done at all locations, that argument wouldn't carry as much weight.

You're basically saying that it doesn't matter because the whole certification process is bogus anyway. If the audits were frequent, legit and done at all locations, that argument wouldn't carry as much weight.
Don't put words in my mouth!

I am saying that the "sample" system of auditing is tried and proven from financial auditing by CPAs to QMS auditing by Registrars. If the target organization strays, that does not invalidate the audit process, it merely says that some individuals will stray due to ignorance, incompetence, misfeasance, or malfeasance. The basic premise of an audit to a Standard is that the "snapshot" was true on the day and date stated. The Registrar is not responsible if the organization goes off track before the annual surveillance. The Registrar is not responsible if the organization willfully hides material information from the auditor. The Registrar is certainly not responsible for anything hidden from the "camera" which made the snapshot.

Customers are still responsible for due diligence before dealing with a supplier, regardless of what type of Registration (if any) the supplier may hold. the more crucial to one's supply chain, the more diligent the customer should be before approving the supplier.

Sears was the first company I can recall that was widely advertising multiple locations getting registered to ISO9002:1994. It looks like they continue to keep up their registrations. See the following link:

http://www.sears.com/sr/misc/sears/jobsec/careers_repair_services.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@0701639794.1125430805@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccdfaddfieejkjjcegecegjdghldghg.0&vertical=SEARS&vertical=SEARS

It states the following, and I quote:

"Product Repair Services has pioneered the use of ISO 9000 registration and Sears Sigma principles in a service environment, evidence of the organization's commitment to quality and professionalism."

They are the only company I can think of off the top of my head that is similar to a franchise.

Good Luck with your long term goals Evanbron!

Customers are still responsible for due diligence before dealing with a supplier, regardless of what type of Registration (if any) the supplier may hold. the more crucial to one's supply chain, the more diligent the customer should be before approving the supplier.
Unfortunately, this due diligence often takes the form of interminable and intrusive supplier surveys and audits that would not be necessary if registration carried more weight, and it doesn't carry more weight because of policies like extending the scope of registration to locations that have not been audited.

I don't think a franchise operation, at least as I understand it, could fall under a sampling scheme. Franchises are typically independently owned and operated - meaning independent management. Any ISO corporate location scheme I have seen falls under the same legal entity, ownership and executive management.

Franchise owners are buying the name, processes, and probably equipment/ingredients (as applicable to the product) from the main corporation. They are still independently operated.

Another important consideration in the sampling scheme is that if one fails, all fail. So, if I own all the McDonald's in Michigan and run them perfectly, do I want to lose my cert if one in Alaska fails their audit - when I have no ownership, interest or connection to it - other than in name? Maybe if I own 200 franchises I get them certified under a sampling scheme, but not with all the other franchies owners out there.

I don't think a franchise operation, at least as I understand it, could fall under a sampling scheme. Franchises are typically independently owned and operated - meaning independent management. Any ISO corporate location scheme I have seen falls under the same legal entity, ownership and executive management.

Franchise owners are buying the name, processes, and probably equipment/ingredients (as applicable to the product) from the main corporation. They are still independently operated. The following is an excerpt from annex 3 to the IAF Guidance to ISO Guide 62: 1. DEFINITIONS
1.1. Multi-site Organization

1.1.1. A multi-site organization is defined as an organization having an identified central function (normally, and hereafter referred to as a central office) at which certain activities are planned, controlled or managed and a network of local offices or branches (sites) at which such activities are fully or partially carried out.

1.1.2. Such an organization need not be a unique legal entity, but all sites shall have a legal or contractual link with the central office of the organization and be subject to a common quality management system, which is laid down, established and subject to continuous surveillance by the central office. This means that the central office has rights to implement corrective actions when needed in any site. Where applicable this should be laid down in the contract between the central office and the sites.

Examples of possible multi-site organizations are:

1. Organizations operating with franchises,

2. Manufacturing companies with a network of sales offices (this annex would apply to the sales network),

3. Companies with multiple branches.

Unfortunately, this due diligence often takes the form of interminable and intrusive supplier surveys and audits that would not be necessary if registration carried more weight, and it doesn't carry more weight because of policies like extending the scope of registration to locations that have not been audited.
I guess we have to agree to disagree. I am not about to cede my responsibility and authority to approve a supplier to a third party. The fact of registration is just one factor in my overall approval of a supplier. It means the supplier has at least the bare minimum of a formal QMS. It does not mean the product or service will be to my liking. I still go through a filtering process, allotting more diligence to custom suppliers than to commodity suppliers. If I were building a house, for instance, I would spend a lot more effort deciding which manufacturer to buy HVAC equipment from than which supplier for nails and screws. More effort in deciding custom millwork suppliers of windows and doors than in standard framing materials which my own workers trim to size.

If you are a supplier of custom goods versus a supplier of commodities, you can expect more scrutiny and prepare for it efficiently. If you can't deal efficiently with the scrutiny, perhaps that's an aspect of business that needs more attention.

Custom suppliers I like to do business with welcome customer scrutiny. I simply don't do business with those who don't. My scrutiny, however, is not mere paper shuffling, but real scrutiny. Some customers CAN be jerks in asking for meaningless drivel. I first try to educate them. If unsuccessful, I avoid them.

Straying a bit :topic: , but...
With manufactured parts, one of the underlying assumptions that justifies sampling is that the parts were created as part of a reasonably homogeneous stream subject to only random variation. It doesn't seem to me that the same assumptions may be made in the case of franchised business units. Although there are some cases of remarkable homogeneity, as in the case of say, McDonald's or Subway, the problem of non-random variation (that could affect compliance with a standard) is still a potential problem.


The sampling to which you refer is called a "Corporate Scheme" within the ISO literature. Most certification Bodies would probably not apply it to the franchisees. One, they are separately owned, and not part of the same corporation. Two, they would also have to be operating under the same manual and procedures, the same quality system. I'm not sure the accreditation bodies would buy it.

The sampling to which you refer is called a "Corporate Scheme" within the ISO literature. Most certification Bodies would probably not apply it to the franchisees. One, they are separately owned, and not part of the same corporation. Two, they would also have to be operating under the same manual and procedures, the same quality system. I'm not sure the accreditation bodies would buy it.Your opinion contradicts the text of annex 3 of the IAF Guidance to ISO/IEC Guide 62, as noted in my previous post.

Your opinion contradicts the text of annex 3 of the IAF Guidance to ISO/IEC Guide 62, as noted in my previous post.

"The great tragedy of science: the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." --Thomas Huxley :D

Your opinion contradicts the text of annex 3 of the IAF Guidance to ISO/IEC Guide 62, as noted in my previous post.


I confess I am not clear why you think my comments contradict the ref you site. I'm well aware of the "Corporate Scheme" concept. A "Corporate Scheme" approach is based on common management, with a common scheme. The reason why a "Corporate Scheme" allows a reduction in audit time is because that commonality means a lot of parts of the system would be the same from location to location, therefore it doesn't get audited again and again. However, a franchisee is not part of the central management. I am a 3rd party auditor, but that does not guarantee my perspective is correct. I guess it would depend on packaging it in a way that a certification body and the ANAB (RAB) would both buy into it. I just don't think they would.

I confess I am not clear why you think my comments contradict the ref you site.... I just don't think they would.Let's see. You stated:Most certification Bodies would probably not apply it to the franchisees. One, they are separately owned, and not part of the same corporation. The IAF Guidance document states:1. DEFINITIONS
1.1. Multi-site Organization

1.1.1. A multi-site organization is defined as an organization having an identified central function (normally, and hereafter referred to as a central office) at which certain activities are planned, controlled or managed and a network of local offices or branches (sites) at which such activities are fully or partially carried out.

1.1.2. Such an organization need not be a unique legal entity, but all sites shall have a legal or contractual link with the central office of the organization and be subject to a common quality management system, which is laid down, established and subject to continuous surveillance by the central office. This means that the central office has rights to implement corrective actions when needed in any site. Where applicable this should be laid down in the contract between the central office and the sites.

Examples of possible multi-site organizations are:

1. Organizations operating with franchises,
So, the way I read your posts, it does not agree with the IAF document. That is why.

Let's see. You stated: The IAF Guidance document states: So, the way I read your posts, it does not agree with the IAF document. That is why.

Well, OK... As I said, I am an auditor, not the final arbitrator. The petitioner will have to persuade his certification body and the accreditation body that their approach will fit this rule. I just don't see it passing their interpretation of central management. But, if they buy it, that's cool too. Your email cut off at the cl 1.1 phrase about franchisees, so I am not sure how it continued. (I am on the road and don't have my copy of Guide 62 available.) Nice chatting with you, however.

Franchises are typically independently owned and operated - meaning independent management.

You can take the word typically out of the above definition. (IMHO)

A franchise is an independent company... as opposed to an independent profit center of a multi-sited company.

As to your first question:

The franchises would not automatically be ISO certified.

A new franchisee may adopt the franchiser's QMS...

but the new franchisee and/or new new office of a muti-sited company normally has to implement the QMS and do everything necessary for a initial audit and have the external assessment audit before they are considered certified.

The only thing I have seen in Germany like the franchise portion of the question is where a number of small transportation companies will make an association. The association has a QMS and is certified. In addition, each seperate member company of the association has their own certification. The only difference is that the HQ of the association will conduct internal audits of member companies and assess monitery fines for NCRs.

One other trick found here is to have a consultant that will make an association. Then he finds small companies that want to have ISO certification. The companies adopt the consultant's central standardized QMS documentation for a general QMS and each company writes their own technical process precedures. The external consultant serves as a QM for all the companies and gets everyone through the audit process.

Yep, it's a weak system... but they get certified.

You can take the word typically out of the above definition. (IMHO)

A franchise is an independent company... as opposed to an independent profit center of a multi-sited company.

As to your first question:

The franchises would not automatically be ISO certified.

A new franchisee may adopt the franchiser's QMS...

but the new franchisee and/or new new office of a muti-sited company normally has to implement the QMS and do everything necessary for a initial audit and have the external assessment audit before they are considered certified.

The only thing I have seen in Germany like the franchise portion of the question is where a number of small transportation companies will make an association. The association has a QMS and is certified. In addition, each seperate member company of the association has their own certification. The only difference is that the HQ of the association will conduct internal audits of member companies and assess monitery fines for NCRs.

One other trick found here is to have a consultant that will make an association. Then he finds small companies that want to have ISO certification. The companies adopt the consultant's central standardized QMS documentation for a general QMS and each company writes their own technical process precedures. The external consultant serves as a QM for all the companies and gets everyone through the audit process.

Yep, it's a weak system... but they get certified.
I actually approve of this concept! Very creative! the devil is in the details, however. I'd love to see one of these in real life. Can you refer us to one?

I actually approve of this concept! Very creative! the devil is in the details, however. I'd love to see one of these in real life. Can you refer us to one?

It's in Germany and the documentation is in German.

I don't think the system I saw was very good, to tell the truth, and the company I audited decided to keep the QMS and the consultant as a QM, but they went for an independent certificate rather than being a company under the umbrella of the consultant's association.

That decision was made because the company wanted some independence when it came to certain requirements, such as frequency of Management Reviews, document changes, etc.

But I can PM you with the consultant's contact information if you want. He doesn't speak English though.

It's in Germany and the documentation is in German.

I don't think the system I saw was very good, to tell the truth, and the company I audited decided to keep the QMS and the consultant as a QM, but they went for an independent certificate rather than being a company under the umbrella of the consultant's association.

That decision was made because the company wanted some independence when it came to certain requirements, such as frequency of Management Reviews, document changes, etc.

But I can PM you with the consultant's contact information if you want. He doesn't speak English though.
Thanks, but that wouldn't serve my purpose
Wes Bucey offers service as "Strategy Advisor" - Seeking Case Studies for Book
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=9117
Keep me in mind if you run across one with ability to communicate in English. I can read German, but I'm very rusty and need to have a dictionary and a grammar book to wade through anything more than Wie gehts or Guten Tag. Once my elderly relatives died and my favorite German restaurant closed, I haven't had any reason to stay in practice.

Franchises DO have a central function as required by the IAF document.

If you own and operate a McDonalds, you are held to strict corporate regulations. For instance, you can't change the color of the arches to purple or start serving spaghetti and meatballs just because you feel like it.

McDonalds could easily have a multi site registration. So could Jiffy lube, WalMart or any other multi site organization, franchised or not.

As to the previous question of why would you risk the registration of all in the event that one site fails an audit, NO registrar would risk losing a McDonalds muliti site registration by failing one site, regardless of the findings. You would have a better chance of winning the lottery.

Carl-

Sorry, bear with me if I am late to all this - been on vacation in the good old U S of A! Glad to be back though, refreshed and ready for the fray!
I agree with most of what has been said with the exception that franchises could easily go under the same cert. And they do. As long as there is a central point of business.

I worked for a printing company that had two facilities, 30 miles apart. Facility 1 did digital print and digital print only. Small, IBM digital printing. 6 presses in about 2500 sq ft.

Facility 2 did offset and other types of print. HUGE industrial type equipment used by magazine and newspaper printers. 6 printers would take 10 times the space. The two had no more to do with each other than building toy airplanes and jumbo jets would.But were the two locations included as part of the assessment? In my mind they should have been - so there would be sampling of the relevant processes.

There was no homogeneity whatsoever.Not required. If the two business steams are audited - as above then the assessment is valid - so long as the audit team understands the two types of processes.

They were under the same cert.

The Registrar was one of the top 3 British based firms.

If you pay them, they will do it.

Carl-Nice finish Carl :nope:

Paul,

Yes, both locations were part of an assessment, but not always on the same visit.

Seems pretty odd to me. Like Yamaha getting registered to one cert for pianos and motorcycles.

Not picking on the British firms, they did a fine job of auditing, I just meant that it was not a fly by night operation giving away certs like candy.

Just for the record, I feel registration should be site specific.

Carl-

IMHO the most important thing is for the organization to be registered. If I have multiple sites a potential customer won't necessarily know that. If an organization has a quality registration then that registration should cover everything it does. One of the changes with 9k2k was to bring in this requirement to document exclusions with the overall aim of covering the total system. This is one area where I feel certification has a long way to go. Plenty of registrars are still registering parts of organizations.

I can feel another poll coming on .....