I am a new employee (Quality Manager type) for a very small CNC machining company (4000 sq. ft. 6 employees). As of yet, this company have no systems in place, just the bare essentials. This will now be under my leadership and guidance to form our team and develop. The company is interested in ISO 9000 Standard but as I understand an ISO initial audit is quite expensive ($10K) as well as the follow-up (Auditors expenses) which can be another $5K. Is my cost information correct? Is there another type of accredition that we can obtain that will be more affordable and provide the same "clout" as an ISO review.

Welcome to The Cove! :bigwave:

The costs of registration involve making systems ready and doing audit rounds to record effectiveness and corrective actions, as well as contracting a registrar to do the registration audit and issue the certificate.

I'm not aware of a standard that is respected yet costs less. However, what some people do is to say they are compliant with such-and-such, without using the word registered. That saves the costs of registering, which can be significant. Costs could be reduced by contracting someone local.

My vote is in for claiming compliance versus rushing to register. This matter of making systems to meet ISO standards is a big step. No need to rush it unless customers demand it.

The dilemma you (and other small organizations) face is very real. The cost of doing business as an 'ISO Registered' business is not insignificant. There are some registrars who have 'special programs' for smaller organizations. It might be worth doing a search on the internet. Another way of looking at this cost is that since you will be registered, it does open your doors to dealing with customers who have registration as a pre-requisite to doing business. It might be worth looking into your costs of advertizing or marketing to compare them, since you'll be listed as a registered company.

In addition, do you know what other customers you could be working for (maybe locally) if you were registered? Would they spend that kind of money with you?

I'm also guessing that implementing a system, based on ISO 9001, is going to cost the business something, especially in areas of calibration etc. How does the registrar cost stack up against those costs? If it's compared, sometimes the extra cost of registration doesn't look so bad, especially since it can bring in more $$$$$$

Just a thought........

Andy

Understandable situation. Go to the link here and look under "CB's" to the left and follow the instructions. You'll get a list of a few dozen registrars in the USA, some of which may be able to help.

It's like shopping for a car (sort of anyway)

www.anab.org

I am a new employee (Quality Manager type) for a very small CNC machining company (4000 sq. ft. 6 employees). As of yet, this company have no systems in place, just the bare essentials. This will now be under my leadership and guidance to form our team and develop. The company is interested in ISO 9000 Standard but as I understand an ISO initial audit is quite expensive ($10K) as well as the follow-up (Auditors expenses) which can be another $5K. Is my cost information correct? Is there another type of accredition that we can obtain that will be more affordable and provide the same "clout" as an ISO review.

The numbers you stated sound way too high. I cannot provide you an official quote, you have to contact the CB's. But an initial certification audit for a company your size would typically be somewhere around 3 days. Typically, that runs about 1200-1400 per day, far less than $10,000.

Annual surveillances would probably be one day. The recert audit in the third year would probably be 2 days. That would be about 6 days over 3 years and still would be much less than $10,000 for the whole 3 years.

Auditor travel expenses can't be $5,000. If it is local, it would be a modest amount for travel. I travel all the time and it ranges from $100 - 1000 (if hotels, airfare, and rental cars are involved). Mine are infrequently higher than that. I have never hit even $2000, let alone $5,000.

I think your numbers may reflect high estimates for a whole 3 year period, not an initial assessment.

Note: there is still the cost of your time internally to implement the system. Any consultant or training would be a cost as well.

I have never hit even $2000, let alone $5,000.

:lmao:
Apparently you've never stayed in Washington DC. I get a discounted rate of only $389 per night my next trip in April.

Try $40 for a dry, hocket-puck swordfish steak.

:lmao:
Apparently you've never stayed in Washington DC. I get a discounted rate of only $389 per night my next trip in April.

Try $40 for a dry, hocket-puck swordfish steak.


true, I have not stayed in DC. Had a few swordfish hockey pucks however. (Got to get the chef to treat those very gently.)

However, I think the OP clearly got some pricing things confused. For a 6 person company, those numbers were sky high.

IMHO,it doesn't make any sense for your company to get a ISO9000 certification unless your customer requires that.

There are some registrars who have 'special programs' for smaller organizations. Andy

Adding to what Andy said, I imagine he referes to "special programs" meaning that smaller orgainzations can get together and "share" consultant and auditor expenses... implementation costs can also be dilluted between these smaller organizations by sharing costs such as training seminars, internal auditor training... You can close a package deal with the CB to certify all these smaller organizations with the same auditor (providing he´s got the qualification for all the scopes).

Just a thought

If you do go the registration route don't be shy to negotiate fees. The registrars are in competition and the first estimate won't necessarily reflect the best deal available. I've just had a quote for additional assessment work reduced by 23% without much effort on my part.

IMHO,it doesn't make any sense for your company to get a ISO9000 certification unless your customer requires that.


Please remember, ISO 9001/14001 was created to help companies improve their systems, not because customers required ISO to write it. Customers began to require ISO 9001 because they perceived value in it.

If you do go the registration route don't be shy to negotiate fees. The registrars are in competition and the first estimate won't necessarily reflect the best deal available. I've just had a quote for additional assessment work reduced by 23% without much effort on my part.

It all depends on why you want to get registered. If you want a paper on the wall, herearounds you can buy one in the fish market. Search hard, you may find one in your local fish market.

If you want it for improvement, stick to good registrars but call for competing quotes and haggle hard. You will end up getting a nice discount as Tyker says.

Or else, just implement the systems and dont get registered as Jennifer suggested. We had a gentleman here who liked and implemented ISO 9002 in 1987 but never bothered to get registered. His reasoning - My product sells on its trade name. I dont need any third party to come in and stamp it as good. Sell it did till around 1999, when some export clients demanded ISO. By next week a copy of the certificate was faxed over. This was not from the fish market. The system was in place and functioning.

Suggestion,
Buy the standard, become familiar with it, implement the standard a little at atime. In the future if you are forced by a Major, (spelled $ $ $ $ $ $) customer you will be ready to change over.

I dont' know about the rest of you out there, but it seems more and more demands of registration are coming in these days. You must or else we will...

There are many people on this site who could and probably would write you're manual for you. You can save alot with a little elbow grease. Try to "self declare" for as long as you can.

Please remember, ISO 9001/14001 was created to help companies improve their systems, not because customers required it. Customers began to require it because they perceived value in it.

Hmmm, I thought that BS 5750 (the forerunner of ISO 9001) was a derivative of military standards which were 'forced' upon suppliers to the military. In other words, it was because customers required it.

Indeed, the early versions of BS 5750/ISO 9001 rarely helped companies to improve their systems at all.

The distribution arm of our organization has a database of approx. 3000 customers. Of the 3000, less than 10% "mandate" ISO registration. The rest of the people just want to buy products we sell and really don't care if we are Baldridge, ISO or nothing at all.

The problem for us was that the less than 10%, were the highest $ customers. Over 10 Million $ when you put em together. This drove ISO in our company. So I'm saying this will drive most companies, not the fact that they want to improve processes or any other horse.... we tell ourselves.

People want products that are perceived to be priced reasonably, that can be delivered in the time frame they need, and oh yea, they want the product to work.

Quality is mandatory, ISO itself cannot assure this will happen. All right, I'm steppin off...

I think they were based on MIL-Q-9858, and MIL-Q-45208( as I remember the numbers). I worked with these standards many years ago due to Gov't. contracts and the DOD Rep. coming in to approve the products, and all the correct documentation before we could make a shipment.

What Raplh said ,I'm not familiar with the BS - which I presume is British Standard.

Sorry, should have explained, BS is British Standard. Before BS 5750 came the Allied Quality Assurance Procedures (AQAP's) and before them were the Mil standards. In the UK they were the 05 series if I remember rightly (a rare occurrence these days!:confused: ).

I will echo "buy the standard, implement it at a reasonable rate, then claim compliance if anyone asks".

I guess it really depends on what the customer base is if you need to register or not. I'm in a machine shop type environment and we've done fine without registration for many years.
We're doing it now to make it a bit easier to get into certain markets (i.e. we will be able to provide a copy of our certificate instead of them sending an auditor to qualify our QMS).

RD,

I am with Jennifer on this one... I'm in the same position you are. We are a small CNC Mill shop with 7 employees. I am in charge of putting together the documentation of our quality system. We were in a rush to register, but now have backed off knowing that we can claim that we are compliant without registration. I have been working on our ISO 9K1: 2K now for about 4 months and have made a ton of progress with the help from the wonderful people here at the Cove. You will find their knowledge invaluable!! Do a few searches and save yourself some money by finding what you need here.

Like Marc says: "Never underestimate the power of a good search!"

And take the advice about buying the standard... I purchased the requirements and guidelines and that has helped immensely!

Good Luck!

Hmmm, I thought that BS 5750 (the forerunner of ISO 9001) was a derivative of military standards which were 'forced' upon suppliers to the military. In other words, it was because customers required it.

Indeed, the early versions of BS 5750/ISO 9001 rarely helped companies to improve their systems at all.

From memory of when I was working at BSI there was an article in one of the house magazines about the history of BS 5750.

Industry asked BSI to develop a standard based on the AQAPs and it was a mixture of people who wanted a model from their own use and those that wanted a model to impose on their suppliers.

I have a query in with BSI to see if anyone can shed some further light. Watch this space ...

RD,

I am with Jennifer on this one... I'm in the same position you are. We are a small CNC Mill shop with 7 employees. I am in charge of putting together the documentation of our quality system. We were in a rush to register, but now have backed off knowing that we can claim that we are compliant without registration. I have been working on our ISO 9K1: 2K now for about 4 months and have made a ton of progress with the help from the wonderful people here at the Cove. You will find their knowledge invaluable!! Do a few searches and save yourself some money by finding what you need here.

Like Marc says: "Never underestimate the power of a good search!"

And take the advice about buying the standard... I purchased the requirements and guidelines and that has helped immensely!

Good Luck!

KWalls is right. Use the site and it will help out. The Cove has some of the best quality talent available.

I would also recommend buying the book: ISO9001:2000 Explained by West, Tsiakals, and Cianfrani.

Best regards,

al40

Hmmm, I thought that BS 5750 (the forerunner of ISO 9001) was a derivative of military standards which were 'forced' upon suppliers to the military. In other words, it was because customers required it.

Indeed, the early versions of BS 5750/ISO 9001 rarely helped companies to improve their systems at all.


I can't address BS 5750. (Maybe the BS part should have been a clue?).

But, if you read the forward to ISO 9001:1994, and esp. the related standards like 9004, it is clear the intent was to help companies get better. And in Europe, a lot of companies did it voluntarily, or at least semi-voluntarily, at first. Eventually, it gained momentum, and a lot of the focus was applied to suppliers...but they got much better as a result, didn't they? Overall quality improved tremendously from 1998-2004.

Overall quality improved tremendously from 1998-2004.Did it? Using the factual approach to decision making principle, I wish we had data to show one way or the other.
Did quality stop improving after 2004? Why?

I still say 95% of us will obtain ISO or whatever, due to mandates by our customer base.

Do your customers insist or do they recommend you obtain a cert?

It is a lot of money for a small place to follow the trend. I have seen in many cases where the small company spends more time and effort than they can can actually afford.

There are alot of those yellow, for sale or lease signs around the Detroit metro area. Alot of of long standing companies are gone!!! ISO or any other AS,QS...etc... didnt help them. We still re-up because we have to.

Once you have a cert and you know the ropes, Why do we need to pay someone $1800.00 annually to tell us what we already know, which in our case is that we are not perfect, we are not the best, but we have a very good management system in place. Why, because $$$$$$$$$$$.

Did it? Using the factual approach to decision making principle, I wish we had data to show one way or the other.
Did quality stop improving after 2004? Why?


The comment was general and anecdotal, for the most part.

However, it is primarily borne out by the data I review regularly at about 50 clients I audit. I essentially am assigned to audit the same clients time and again. Significant improvements in that time. Most are currently at 0 -10 ppm. Some at 50 or less. Fewer than 5 are at more than 100 ppm, and even they have shown massive improvements from where they were. This has been the case for some years now. Almost all have shown significant improvement and robustness.

That is pretty reliable data, though obviously I am not permitted to show the objective evidence for obvious reasons.

I also remember around 2004 reading a comment by a fairly highly placed executive at GM, that 78% of the GM suppliers at the time were at or near 0 ppm. The quality problems were essentially caused by 22% of their suppliers (and probably a few by the GM lines themselves). I think I can safely assert, that was definitely not the state the industry was in back in 1994 (when ISO began to make inroads in the US), let alone 1984.

I'm sure Toyota and Honda suppliers are performing just as well.

The 2004 date was not particularly significant, though around that time, the Big 3 got much pushier and uglier with their suppliers. They began complaining about even irrelevant things, even though their standards were based on 25 ppm. I noticed an uptick in my clients in a 3-5 ppm range, where many had been holding 0 ppm before that.

That's all I've got. There are solid data in there, but not as empirical as some of you would like. On the other hand, I offered some solid data some time ago, as a challenge to the Cove, and not a single person took up the challenge to compare data.

When I make statements here that this stuff CAN work, it is not based on me wishing it would work. I have SEEN it work for many companies over the years. I press my clients to make it work. Somewhere along the line, I understood that was the role of an auditor. Those that want to play games do NOT stay in my client roster.

Further, many of you here on the Cove have seen it work at your companies. Let's not forget the many posters who indicate good results. I would suggest the crowd probably falls about 50/50. Half have seen very good results at their companies, and half are still focused on how they can get around the system. Remember, if you put in the effort, you deserve good results.

I think there is more than enough data, if one wants to see it. If it didn't work, I'd get out of the business. But, since I know it works, it's a blast! :yes:

[quote]It is a lot of money for a small place to follow the trend. I have seen in many cases where the small company spends more time and effort than they can can actually afford.

I agree for a small company it can be expensive.

There are alot of those yellow, for sale or lease signs around the Detroit metro area. Alot of of long standing companies are gone!!! ISO or any other AS,QS...etc... didnt help them.

I would suggest ISO was not the cause. It may have helped many survive a little longer. The Big 3 have a murderous attitude toward squeezing the very life out of their suppliers, then moving on to the next one. I think they are getting a long overdue whipping they have long deserved. unfortunately, a lot of companies in MI, OH, IN, and PA have been abused and harmed by them.



Once you have a cert and you know the ropes, Why do we need to pay someone $1800.00 annually to tell us what we already know, which in our case is that we are not perfect, we are not the best, but we have a very good management system in place. Why, because $$$$$$$$$$$.


If you are not getting beneficial findings from your auditor to help you improve, then maybe you don't have the right auditor...:cool:

I rarely have an audit where we don't have some useful findings, even if they are just OFI's.

Those that want to play games do stay in my client roster.

Further, many of you here on the Cove have seen it work at your companies. Let's not forget the many posters who indicate good results. I would suggest the crowd probably falls about 50/50. Half have seen very good results at their companies, and half are still focused on how they can get around the system. Remember, if you put in the effort, you deserve good results.

I think there is more than enough data, if one wants to see it. If it didn't work, I'd get out of the business. But, since I know it works, it's a blast! :yes:

So there are those who want to play games. and they continue on your roster with a valid certificate. They dont get a warning or get kicked out. Is it $$$ speaking?

So long as us seeing it work or trying hard to make it work in our companies, you are dead on spot. Thats the very reason we are all here on the cove. Thats exactly the reason why we cannot be taken as a representative sample. There are so many people who did it under compulsion who are not present on the cove. We have seen them in our roles as auditors / consultants. The fact does slip through when discussing as 'they stay on'.

I am a new employee (Quality Manager type) for a very small CNC machining company (4000 sq. ft. 6 employees). As of yet, this company have no systems in place, just the bare essentials. This will now be under my leadership and guidance to form our team and develop. The company is interested in ISO 9000 Standard but as I understand an ISO initial audit is quite expensive ($10K) as well as the follow-up (Auditors expenses) which can be another $5K. Is my cost information correct? Is there another type of accredition that we can obtain that will be more affordable and provide the same "clout" as an ISO review.

Apart from other things that you just asked,one thing that I would like to ask other auditors in Cove."Is ISO 9001 be called accreditation or certification?"
:thanks:

Apart from other things that you just asked,one thing that I would like to ask other auditors in Cove."Is ISO 9001 be called accreditation or certification?"
:thanks:

Certification.

Let it suffice to say here that the paper is issued to you by a Certification Body. This is done after checking that you are working as per the standard ISO 9001:2000 and related documents.

They in turn are accreditated to an Accreditation Body. This paper is issued to them after checking that they work as per something called Guide 62 and related documents.

So there are those who want to play games. and they continue on your roster with a valid certificate. They dont get a warning or get kicked out. Is it $$$ speaking?

.


SO SORRY! TYPO! Those that want to play games quickly get REMOVED from my roster.

I work very hard for my clients, and those that want to play games would quickly get irritated with me anyway. They would not want me to work with them.

Eventually, it gained momentum, and a lot of the focus was applied to suppliers...but they got much better as a result, didn't they? Overall quality improved tremendously from 1998-2004.

You are certainly right about improvement in most industries, especially the automotive in the UK (what is left of it!). The quality of most UK made cars in the seventies was dreadful. At least build quality is much better now, even if most of the cars built are not UK based companies e.g. Honda, Toyota etc.

I just don't think that improvement was the initial motive behind the standard - I believe it was more about compliance and making sure that the customer could be confident of getting what s/he wanted i.e. it was a purchaser's standard. Fortunately, it has changed over the years so that it now addresses some of each.

... I just don't think that improvement was the initial motive behind the standard - I believe it was more about compliance and making sure that the customer could be confident of getting what s/he wanted i.e. it was a purchaser's standard. ....


I think you are actually making my case. Customers used it as a "purchasing standard" to press suppliers to improve, thereby "making sure that the customer could be confident of getting what s/he wanted..."

Customers wanted better quality and delivery, and everything I have seen, didn't those both improve tremendously in that period? Even costs improved.

After the stock market crash and recession (2001-2002), very short-sighted OEM Purchasing VPs foolishly tossed those gains aside and demanded price, price, price. They never learned that cost reductions come from improved processes.

Oh well, they'll have to do a few more laps... It should be pointed out, during that time the Asian OE's climbed tremendously, even though Big 3 quality had already improved a lot. As I frequently point out, the Big 3's problems are no longer their suppliers. Their primary problem is their completely distorted, counter-productive approach to working with their supply chain.

Maybe we all should reread the nursery story about the Goose that laid the Golden Eggs. It's a good metaphor for the Big 3 Supply Chain Management.

That is pretty reliable data, though obviously I am not permitted to show the objective evidence for obvious reasons.... On the other hand, I offered some solid data some time ago, as a challenge to the Cove, and not a single person took up the challenge to compare dataSince you can not offer customer data due to confidentiality issues, what data could you offer to prove your point?

Since you can not offer customer data due to confidentiality issues, what data could you offer to prove your point?


I offered two long, detailed posts, explaining summaries of the changes and improvements I have seen in the field over the last 10 years. If that does not satisfy your curiousity, then I don't think I will be able to offer you enough to put you over the top. I offered summaries, GM info, and general observations.

I'm not sure what else I can offer you, short of a detailed, empirical analysis and presentation of the clients' confidential info. And frankly, if you don't believe the info I have shared thus far in several posts, I'm not certain you would believe it even if I offered empirical data...

If you are not seeing the same improvements in your clients, then I'm sorry. But, it does not change what I see on a regular basis. Clients who put their right efforts into these programs get results. Clients who skim the surface, don't.

I'm not sure what else I can offer you. I'm not concerned about "proving" anything. I was just reporting solid, interesting info. I would assume you would see the same data with clients at your agency.

There is a way: It's called a "Supplier's decaration of conformity." The requirements are found in ISO 17050, parts 1 & 2.

I'm not sure what else I can offer you, You (not me) offered to share data. Opinions and generalization do not constitute data. When you stated: I offered some solid data some time ago, as a challenge to the Cove, and not a single person took up the challenge to compare data I thought that you meant you had DATA to share.

You (not me) offered to share data. Opinions and generalization do not constitute data. When you stated: I thought that you meant you had DATA to share.


Sidney, sometimes our discussions get strangely crosswise. I can't figure you out sometimes, and have no interest in academic debates.

As I already said in my previous post:

I believe I stated clearly that obviously I could not share the empirical, underlying client data (confidential client info, obviously), but I could offer a summation of the data I regularly review.

I detailed some specifics of that summary. I offered two long, detailed posts, explaining summaries of the changes and improvements I have seen in the field over the last 10 years.

That's all I offered. I never offered to prove anything. And I didn't post it for your benefit. You have your own clients, who's data you are permitted to review. Most folks on the Cove don't get that opportunity, so I wanted to support the premise that this stuff has indeed helped the industry.

If that does not satisfy your curiousity, well, sorry...it does not change what I know my clients and many others have achieved with their systems.

After this many years, there are some folks who still don't think ISO has made anything better. Frankly, they don't want to change their view, no matter how much evidence may be presented. I'm not concerned about trying to persuade that group. I participate for the other half.

I just don't think that improvement was the initial motive behind the standard - I believe it was more about compliance and making sure that the customer could be confident of getting what s/he wanted i.e. it was a purchaser's standard. Fortunately, it has changed over the years so that it now addresses some of each.

Just had a response from Charles Corrie at BSI. Thanks, Charles :applause:

The development of the BS 5750 standards in BSI followed from the puiblication of the earlier BS 4778:1971 "Glossary of general terms used in quality assurance", the 3 part BS 5179:1974 "Guide to the operation and evaluation of quality assurance systems" standards, and only eventually to the requirements standards of BS 5750:1979.

All of them were is some way based on the prevailing Defence Standards (DEF STAN) 05-21/1 to 05-29/1 series, which were also equivalent to the NATO Allied Quality Assurance Publication (or AQAP) standards.

These in turn were derived from earlier US military standards, particulalrly MIL-Q-9858A.

The driving force for the development of the civilian standards was the recognition that many sectors of industy, that were not involved in
military supply, also needed quality systems.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) provided a first set of drafts that became the basis for the BS 5179:1974 series of standards.

The reason given for the conversion of BS 5179 into the BS 5750 series is "the growing demand for the application of quality assurance principles to contracts and for the assessment of suppliers' quality management systems, has led to the publication of a number of quality assurance standards by various purchasing and third party organizations.
This proliferation has highlighted the need for a British Standard that will encourage the rationalization envisaged in Sir Frederick Warner's report on 'Standards and specifications in the engineering industries', published by the National Economic Office (NEDO), February 1977.

The other organizations recognized in the development of BS 5750
include:

Confederation of British Industry
Consumers' Association
Institute of Cost and Management Accountants
Institute of Quality Assurance
Institute of Statisticians
Institution of Electrical Engineers
Institution of Production Engineers
Ministry of Defence
National Council for Quality and Reliability
National Terotechnology Centre
Aluminium Federation
British Electrical and Allied Manufcaturers' Association (BEAMA)
British Gas Corporation
British Industrial Measuring and Control Apparatus Manufacturers'Association
British Non-Ferrous Metals Federation
British Nuclear Forum
British Plastics Federation
British Railways Board
British Rubber Manufacturers' Association
British Steel Corporation
British Welded Steel Tube Manufacturers' Association
Consumer Standards Advisory Committee of BSI
Electrical Supply Industry in England and Wales
Electronic Engineering Association
Engineering Equipment Users Association
Institute of Purchasing and Supply
London Transport Exectutive
National Coal Board
Post Office
Process Plant Association
Rotating Electrical Machines Association
Scientific Instrument Manufacturers' Association
Society of British Aerospace Companies Limited
Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Limited
Transmission and Distribution Association
Water-tube Boliermakers'Association.

Clients who put their right efforts into these programs get results. Clients who skim the surface, don't.


Yes. Exactly what I see. Those who use it as a good tool get results. Those who do it superficially, with poor understanding or without 'embracing quality' (a cliche, I know, but can't think of a better way to put it) don't.

In the IT field they call it GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Thanks Paul, I am happy that my memory has not failed me completely (yet). I remembered it as a 'purchasing standard' i.e. one which was imposed to help assure the purchaser rather than a standard which was for the direct benefit of the 'user', that came later as ISO 9001 evolved.

Our organization is looking for some standard which can offer technical competence. Like for Lab functions we have ISO 17025:2005, for IT we have ISO 27001 (compliance) for inspections we are in a documentation process of ISO 17020. etc etc.:applause:
This maybe an alternate to ISO 9001 but what i'm saying to the management is that we shall not leave ISO 9001 though we are working on other standards as well.