http://www.iso.org/iso/en/commcentre/pressreleases/2006/Ref1014.html

Ref.: 1014
8 June 2006
Do consumers really care about ISO 9001:2000 certification?

ISO’s magazine ISO Management Systems (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/ims/ims.html) publishes what it describes as “a rarity” in its latest issue – an article giving the results of one of the few surveys carried out by a professional market research organization to uncover just what consumers know or care about ISO 9000.
“The findings are of vital interest to the thousands of organizations worldwide that invest in ISO 9001:2000,” comments the ISO magazine.

The article is authored by the instigators of the survey, James Tannock, a Reader in Quality and Operations Management at the Nottingham University Business School, Nottingham, United Kingdom, and Henry Brow, who was an undergraduate at the Nottingham University Business School when the survey was carried out.

They introduce their findings by asking, “Wouldn’t it be useful for companies that invest in ISO 9001:2000 implementation and certification to have some hard data on whether this improves how consumers perceive their organization, its products and services?

“Many surveys on the impacts and benefits of the ISO 9000 quality management standards have been carried out, but most have dealt with business-to-business relationships and issues. This article breaks new ground in presenting the main findings of a survey to discover the knowledge, perceptions and attitudes of consumers towards ISO 9000.”

The survey was carried out in the United Kingdom with the support of the consumer organization Which?It was performed by Ipsos, a leading survey organization, which interviewed 1 012 British adults, using an in-home, face-to-face technique.

The survey revealed that more than one quarter (26 %) of the general adult population was already aware of ISO 9000. (The survey used the generic title of the ISO 9000 series because it was aimed at the general public. In fact, the only certification standard in the series is ISO 9001:2000.)

Awareness was concentrated among working people, was higher among males, in higher income groups, in higher-status social grades and ages 35-54. The authors say that this probably reflects the higher probability that such people will be influenced by working in a business environment, in which ISO 9000 is well known.

They add: “The results also suggest positive attitudes towards ISO 9000 and companies certified to the standard. People tend to perceive products and services associated with ISO 9000 as being of higher quality.”

James Tannock and Henry Brown say that more positive attitudes are also associated with greater awareness, the most positive being among consumers who were spontaneously aware of ISO 9000 and those who had purchased a product or service backed by certification to the standard. These results suggest to the authors that businesses could benefit by increasing the general awareness levels of ISO 9000 in their consumer market.

The authors go on to say, “The results of the questions asking about the importance of ISO 9001:2000 certification in making purchasing decisions also suggest potential business advantage from wider consumer knowledge about the standard, especially for services provided directly to the consumer.
“Consumers who were already aware of ISO 9000 were more likely to choose this factor as the most important issue in purchasing decisions. Overall, the survey results suggest ISO 9001:2000 certification presents potential business and marketing advantages for a company when dealing directly with the consumer.”

In the authors’ view, these results probably reflect an improved consumer experience when dealing with an ISO 9001:2000 certified organization.

The same issue of ISO Management Systems (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/ims/ims.html) magazine, which is available in English, French and Spanish, includes articles on the new ISO 22000 (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/commcentre/pressreleases/archives/2005/Ref987.html) standard for safe food supply chains, the new ISO/IEC 27001 (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/commcentre/pressreleases/archives/2005/Ref976.html) standard for information security, the use made of ISO 9001:2000 (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/understand/index_one.html) by the world’s biggest oil company, implementation of the ISO 14001 (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/understand/index_one.html) environmental management system standard in China, and German standards for the service sector.
Note: ISO does not itself audit or assess the management systems of organizations to verify that they have been implemented in conformity with the requirements of ISO 9001:2000 and ISO does not issue ISO 9001:2000 certificates. The auditing and certification of management systems is carried out independently of ISO. The ISO 9001:2000 issued by certification bodies are issued under their own responsibility and not under ISO's name.

Press contact:
Roger Frost
Press and Communication Manager
Public Relations
Tel. +41 22 749 01 11
Fax +41 22 733 34 30
E-mail frost@iso.org (frost@iso.org)

...a product or service backed by certification to the standard.
I wonder what they mean by this...

I wonder what they mean by this...Good question. Since products and services are not certified to ISO 9001, I believe they used the "backed by" term to imply products and services originating from organizations with QMS certified to ISO 9001:2000.

I think the problem is that most consumers have no real awareness of manufacturing and quality control methods to begin with, so awareness of standardized quality systems is just nonexistent beyond the vague notion that if someone says they're "certified" in something, it must be good.
Marketing is about making people want to buy things they don't need, and if purveyors of consumer goods can use ISO registration to good advantage in that regard, more power to them. It has no bearing on whether or not ISO registration has any real intrinsic value though, and in this sense, it doesn't matter whether it does or not. If you can sell more products by telling gullible people that your product is better than Brand X because of magic pixie dust, it doesn't make any difference whether there is any pixie dust or not.

Now: the lifeline of business (with few exceptions) is not sales; it's repeat sales. If your product makes people want to buy more, or buy a different product from you, and tell their friends to buy them, it still doesn't make any difference to them how the products got to be better than Brand X. If you can use emotional manipulation to make the initial sale of a reasonably priced quality product, you'll probably sell lots of them, but most of the people who buy them will remain blissfully oblivious to how they were made.

Marketing is about making people want to buy things they don't need, and if purveyors of consumer goods can use ISO registration to good advantage in that regard, more power to them. It has no bearing on whether or not ISO registration has any real intrinsic value though, and in this sense, it doesn't matter whether it does or not. If you can sell more products by telling gullible people that your product is better than Brand X because of magic pixie dust, it doesn't make any difference whether there is any pixie dust or not.

Now: the lifeline of business (with few exceptions) is not sales; it's repeat sales. If your product makes people want to buy more, or buy a different product from you, and tell their friends to buy them, it still doesn't make any difference to them how the products got to be better than Brand X. If you can use emotional manipulation to make the initial sale of a reasonably priced quality product, you'll probably sell lots of them, but most of the people who buy them will remain blissfully oblivious to how they were made.

Exactly.
All flavored gelatin has the same texture if you follow the directions; you buy it by flavor or for the brand name. Do you know how they made the flavored gelatin? No. Do you care? No. Is it that particular flavor yummy? Yes; buy more! Do you trust the brand? Yes; buy more!

Behind the scenes doesn't matter. To most folks, ignorance is bliss. How many people would continue to use sucralose if they knew this sweetener is: "derived from sugar through a patented, multi-step process that selectively substitutes three chlorine atoms for three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sugar molecule." and that "The tightly bound chlorine atoms create a molecular structure that is exceptionally stable." according to the International Food Information Counsil?

I am afraid I am going to have to disagree here. The study said around a quarter of the people interviewed knew of ISO 9000. It also gave some demographic info, and that info points to a fairly lucrative market, agreed?

OK, so we have a market segment that is fairly desirable for me as a widget monger, and that segment has ISO 9001 knowledge as a common factor. Two things come to mind:

1. We ought to use ISO 9001 as a way to differentiate our product within this segement if our competition is not certified, or to disallow differentiation by our competitors if they are certified.

2. We need to have our ISO folks look over any use/advertising of ours that touts the certification BEFORE it is released. Saying that our certification "guarantees that our product is excellent when compared to the competition" is sure to reverse any good feelings generated by step one above.

The last TV I bought I picked out of the last 2 candidates because of the ISO 9001 certification announcement stamped on the carton. When all else is equal...

I am afraid I am going to have to disagree here. The study said around a quarter of the people interviewed knew of ISO 9000. It also gave some demographic info, and that info points to a fairly lucrative market, agreed?

OK, so we have a market segment that is fairly desirable for me as a widget monger, and that segment has ISO 9001 knowledge as a common factor. Two things come to mind:

1. We ought to use ISO 9001 as a way to differentiate our product within this segement if our competition is not certified, or to disallow differentiation by our competitors if they are certified.

2. We need to have our ISO folks look over any use/advertising of ours that touts the certification BEFORE it is released. Saying that our certification "guarantees that our product is excellent when compared to the competition" is sure to reverse any good feelings generated by step one above.

The last TV I bought I picked out of the last 2 candidates because of the ISO 9001 certification announcement stamped on the carton. When all else is equal...

Craig, there's a difference between "ISO knowledge" (which you have) and "knowledge of ISO," meaning awareness that such a thing exists. The latter knowledge doesn't suggest that the aware person knows anything beyond the idea that it must be something good.

My own guess is that people with knowledge of ISO systems and the significance of registration would be, in general, less likely to give it any positive weight, (or any weight at all) all else being equal. The TV you didn't buy didn't have a stamp on it that said "Not ISO 9000 Registered." It could well have come from an ISO-registered plant, or it could have come from a non-registered plant with the world's greatest quality system.

I don't think average (general public) "consumers" care. They only care about the price & warranty of the product, not what is behind it all. Industrial & manufacturing consumers, of course, seem to care more.

I think the problem is that most consumers have no real awareness of manufacturing and quality control methods to begin with, so awareness of standardized quality systems is just nonexistent beyond the vague notion that if someone says they're "certified" in something, it must be good.

Remember the "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" years ago. The women consumers thought anything with this seal was the best thing to buy. I think it originated from the "Good Housekeeping " magazine. In the 50's this was THE guide for wives. The use of the "seal" grew leaps and bounds. My mother thought anything with that "seal" had to be good. The consumers did not know how the "seal" was obtained, or what requirements had to be in compliance. They just knew it was a "good thing";)

Remember the "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" years ago.


Energy Star seems to be one of the "seals" of today.

Remember the "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" years ago. The women consumers thought anything with this seal was the best thing to buy. I think it originated from the "Good Housekeeping " magazine. In the 50's this was THE guide for wives. The use of the "seal" grew leaps and bounds. My mother thought anything with that "seal" had to be good. The consumers did not know how the "seal" was obtained, or what requirements had to be in compliance. They just knew it was a "good thing";)

Actually, the seal is still in use (http://www.goodhousekeepingseal.com/r5/home.asp):

The Good Housekeeping Seal is an emblem of the magazine's Consumer Policy, which promises a refund or replacement for defective products within two-years of purchase.

I think the problem is that most consumers have no real awareness of manufacturing and quality control methods to begin with, so awareness of standardized quality systems is just nonexistent beyond the vague notion that if someone says they're "certified" in something, it must be good. Why would we expect peole to have a good knowledge of the manufacturing processes for goods they buy. We Covers are a lucky bunch in that we understand at least something of what makes a good product. I confess to not having the greatest track record on buying goods, though. I used to have household names I could trust but then they started to let me down. At least if I see ISO 9001 it tells me something about the supplier I am choosing - and I know I have a lever if I am not satisfied!

Marketing is about making people want to buy things they don't need,Bit of a sweeping statement there, Jim. As a marketer myself I could take offence. ;)

... and if purveyors of consumer goods can use ISO registration to good advantage in that regard, more power to them. It has no bearing on whether or not ISO registration has any real intrinsic value though, and in this sense, it doesn't matter whether it does or not. If you can sell more products by telling gullible people that your product is better than Brand X because of magic pixie dust, it doesn't make any difference whether there is any pixie dust or not.Now the reason a marketer might want to use ISO 9001 registration is to encourage people to believe they are buying a quality product. The danger (IF they have ISO but poor quality) is that they are building up expectations they cannot meet. A recipe for complaints and bad publicity - the things any marketer worth his / her salt wants to avoid as this will dilute any attempt to promote their product to their target audience.

Now: the lifeline of business (with few exceptions) is not sales; it's repeat sales. If your product makes people want to buy more, or buy a different product from you, and tell their friends to buy them, it still doesn't make any difference to them how the products got to be better than Brand X. If you can use emotional manipulation to make the initial sale of a reasonably priced quality product, you'll probably sell lots of them, but most of the people who buy them will remain blissfully oblivious to how they were made. Again if their overall buying experience is positive then they will tell their friends. If it is negative then they will tell their friends - only more so!

“Consumers who were already aware of ISO 9000 were more likely to choose this factor as the most important issue in purchasing decisions. Overall, the survey results suggest ISO 9001:2000 certification presents potential business and marketing advantages for a company when dealing directly with the consumer.”

In the authors’ view, these results probably reflect an improved consumer experience when dealing with an ISO 9001:2000 certified organization.
The study is all about perception from the consumers perspective. Obviously, all of us are entitled to have opinions. But to dismiss the (validity of a) survey/study just because the author's conclusions do not match with our perceptions is silly.

If I were in the market to buy a new car, I might pay attention to what the JD Power survey tells me about customer satisfaction with the brands I am considering, even though I have no idea of how the JD Power surveys are conducted. It is all about perception.

ISO must be making case for some new product certification!:nopity:

I think that using the term consumer to be interchangeable with end user is a big mistake here. In my industry, it is our customer who "consumes" our product, the end user probably rarely thinks about what went into building that bridge beyond the fact that they see concrete.

As a car buyer, (end user) I am much more interested in my dealership's policies, and the reputation of the manufacturer. Now, the manufacturer consumes all those products to place into that car. Let them be worried about ISO, TS or whatever. I don't want to think about it as an end user. I just want to know that I have confidence in the brand through my own, or trusted others experience.

I do have a tendency to look for the "energy star", but not because of the quality issue, just because these products usually help me to live a little cheaper with less harmful consequences to the environment. I suppose that implies some compliance to environmental systems, but I sure don't look to see if the manufacturer and all its suppliers are registered to ISO 14001.

It is kind of like the reverse of what I tell people here at work. If I've done my job right, the only thing you need to know about ISO is that we are a registered ISO 9001 company. Everything else is just the way we do things, because it is the right way to do things. The same goes for our customers and theirs. If we do it right, it should be invisible. Their first thought should not be "oh, yeah, they're ISO". It should be "oh, yeah, that is a great company, they send us what we need, when we need it, and it is right!"

Why would we expect peole to have a good knowledge of the manufacturing processes for goods they buy. We Covers are a lucky bunch in that we understand at least something of what makes a good product. I confess to not having the greatest track record on buying goods, though. I used to have household names I could trust but then they started to let me down. At least if I see ISO 9001 it tells me something about the supplier I am choosing - and I know I have a lever if I am not satisfied!

I wasn't suggesting that consumers should be knowledgeable about manufacturing methods, just that in general, they're not, so saying that your company is ISO registered won't have any substantive appeal. That doesn't make any difference, though, if it has a positive connotation.

At least if I see ISO 9001 it tells me something about the supplier I am choosing - and I know I have a lever if I am not satisfied!

Yes. It tells you that the company is ISO registered, which is not necessarily useful information. The fact that a company isn't ISO registered (or you don't know whether it is or not) doesn't mean that you don't "have a lever." A certain large, ISO-registered manufacturer of PCs is getting a lot of press lately regarding its abysmal customer service (and I can testify to the veracity of the contention). Perhaps they make fine products, but if the overall impression left with the consumer is negative, it doesn't make much difference in the end.

The study is all about perception from the consumers perspective. Obviously, all of us are entitled to have opinions. But to dismiss the (validity of a) survey/study just because the author's conclusions do not match with our perceptions is silly.

If I were in the market to buy a new car, I might pay attention to what the JD Power survey tells me about customer satisfaction with the brands I am considering, even though I have no idea of how the JD Power surveys are conducted. It is all about perception.

I agree wholeheartedly.:agree:

It has been my experience that consumers don't know most of the time, and in general don't care about 9K or any other standards.

It has also been my experience that consumers who know just a little will look for UL/CSA, etc.

Those who are into testing, especially in public safety related kinds of testing (construction materials, safety testing, etc.) will not buy a product that is not appropriately listed (where available) by organizations like UL/CSA/FM/ICC ES/ITS/ETL or similar, and automatically look for the listing symbol when looking at some product. A side note, Lowes and Home Depot are getting pretty good about requiring listed products where available, Wal-Mart has quite a ways to go.

Of course, listed products are under ISO Guide 65.

Just my thoughts.

Hershal

The article mixes topics. The article refers to the benefits of CERTIFICATION to ISO 9001 and ISO 9001 itself. Which is it? Are we talking about the benefits of conformity assessment or the benefits of using the standard?

Is the study about the benefits and knowledge of certification? Is the study about the benefits and knowledge of the standard?

These questions apply to the thread also. What are we discussing?

Certification means almost nothing to me. It means an organization paid someone to come into their organization and audit them.

The customer oriented requirements, the corrective action requirements, and other associated control requirements are meaningful to me as a consumer.

Unfortunately, ISO 9001 and conformity assessment now mean the same thing to almost everyone. I don't think these two things will ever be seperate concepts again. "ISO 9001" is all about conformity assessment.

Regards,

Dirk

The article mixes topics. The article refers to the benefits of CERTIFICATION to ISO 9001 and ISO 9001 itself. Which is it? Are we talking about the benefits of conformity assessment or the benefits of using the standard?

Is the study about the benefits and knowledge of certification? Is the study about the benefits and knowledge of the standard?The press release from the ISO website is posted. So, you can reach your own conclusion. The title of the press release is specific.

Now, from a consumer's point of view, a basic difference between buying from a certified organization and a self-declaring one, would be the fact that, in case of an unsatisfactory resolution of a complaint, the consumer could escalate and elevate their complaint to the Registrar of the certified organization. For, the self-declaring organization, the consumer could ....rant and rave louder, I guess. :mad:

It does not matter if Customer know about ISO TS 16949 or ISO 9001, the important fact is that firstly they want a secure product and then a product with Quality. No more, and this is the target of every system

If your product have low security, nobody will say that has Quality, therefore the Security is over Quality.

See the impact in the Audience when Mercedes or BMW re-call for revision due to a feil in any sytem.

:whip:

It does not matter if Customer know about ISO TS 16949 or ISO 9001, the important fact is that firstly they want a secure product and then a product with Quality. No more, and this is the target of every system

If your product have low security, nobody will say that has Quality, therefore the Security is over Quality.I think you mean SAFETY. Since ISO 9001 requires the organization to ensure product compliance with regulatory requirements, and regulatory requirements emphasize product safety, I don't think product safety is above product quality. It is part of. Remember the ISO 9000 definition of quality?

..."ISO 9001" is all about conformity assessment.

Dirk


Perhaps to some, but many of us think of ISO audits as far more than just conformity.

I tell clients in opening meetings that we're focusing 1/3 on verifying complaince and 2/3 on improvements. And, that is what they focus on in turn.

I guess you get what you ask for? I think it is clear the intent of the new standard was process improvement, not just conformance.

I think you mean SAFETY. Since ISO 9001 requires the organization to ensure product compliance with regulatory requirements, and regulatory requirements emphasize product safety, I don't think product safety is above product quality. It is part of. Remember the ISO 9000 definition of quality?
---------------------------------

Let me suggest an hypothetical case.

Imagine you are a manufacturer in USA (NY) all your customer are happy with you, you have a yearly rate of ppm equal to cero and your service to the customers is excellent, you meet the law subject to your product in USA and the external Audis says that you go beyond the TS16949, in that scenario we would say your product has a high level of Quality.

But a new customer has arised in Puerto Real, Cadiz, Spain Europe (Lets say Delphi Puerto Real ), so you start to see what things you need to put your product in Europe. After you have spoken with a E.U Notified Body they tell you that your product in under E.U Directive therefore C.E mark (Conformity European). :caution:

Well your product do not have the C.E mark therefore your product is not safe in Europe (But has a outstanding level of Quality).

After that, you start the conformity modules evaluation conducted by a notified body to include the C.E mark on your product, but the notified Body told you that you did not meet the European harmonised norms (EN Norms) and the initiated an equivalent study of the norms for your product. After that, they advised that your product did not meet the E.U directives therefore your product is not safe in Europe. :mad: :mad: :mad:

What I am trying to say is Safety, although is a global concept, in fact is subject to local laws therefore currently in the world is not global, but Quality does, due to ISO.

In the past Safety in Europe was a nightmare your product was safe in Spain but not in Germany, that´s why the E.U Commission created the new focus Directives, if your product meet the minimum requirements listed in the Directives your product is safe in all Europe, this allow to protect the manufacturer against the local governments. :thanx:

What I am trying to say is Safety, although is a global concept, in fact is subject to local laws therefore currently in the world is not global, but Quality does, due to ISO.:confused:
Sorry, but I don't get what you are trying to say. Are you implying that the World should have one set of regulatory requirements? Do you realize that adoption of ISO Standards are voluntary and regulatory requirements are, by definition, mandates?

Basically I mean.

Security.......................Quality.

Mandatory.................Voluntary (Some cases could be Mandatory ( CE mark)

Local Law................................ISO definition of Quality and Systems

Local concept(E.U; USA)....................... Global concept (ISO)

Some intends to
create global norms
(E.N to meet local laws)


Dangerous to Human, environment,
animals.................................................. Less dangerous to life



Relative concept.................................Global concept.


For me the term Mandatory is more strong that the concept Voluntary that´s why I said that Safety is over Quality and what else we are not still agree between Countries what safety is, that´s why I separate Safety from Quality.
(Some Countries still do homologation for many products).

In the future when this concept be global we could say that Security is a part of Quality, because we all be agree about the concept.

Hello Hijilling:

"I think it is clear the intent of the new standard was process improvement, not just conformance."

You have also mixed conformity assessment and the standard. The intent of ISO 9001 may be improvement. That doesn't mean that the intent of conformity assessment must also be improvement. How conformity assessment is realized is not dependent on the intent of the standard.

The type of audit perfomed is not dependent on the intent of the requriements being audited.

One can perform a conformance or performance (conformance + improvement) audit to a standard independent of the intent of the standard.

Regards,

Dirk

One can perform a conformance or performance (conformance + improvement) audit to a standard independent of the intent of the standard.


Are you saying that the requirements embodied in the standard do not reflect the intent of the standard? I'm confused.

Regardless of the requirements and intent.....

Go ask 100 people on the street about 9K (ISO 9001).....or any other standard for that matter.....and see just how many even know about it or give the "deer in the headlights" look.....much less what the standard does or does not hope to accomplish.....

Just my thoughts.....

Hershal

Go ask 100 people on the street about 9K (ISO 9001).....or any other standard for that matter.....
That is EXACTLY what was done for the survey, subject of the press release, that I posted in the original post of this thread. And the results were (in the UK) 26% of the interviewed people were "aware" of ISO 9000. Not overly surprisingly, when you realize that, in the UK, for historical reasons, Quality Management System registration is an older and more "mainstream" phenomenon.

I have been doing the Quality Systems Orientations here for 4 years. In that time we have gone from 80 to 300 employees. I always ask if anyone has ever heard of ISO9001, QS9000, or TS16949 systems. Only those with previous experience in a factory supplying automotive customers have heard of any of those systems. These are less than 5% of the total hired.
Usually get the deer in the headlights looks.

Sidney,

That the British are somewhat more familiar does not surprise me.....

In the U.S. though, it is anopther story.....

Hershal