I am a newbie to this site but I have to say you are all great! I learn a lot just by reading the posts.

Anyway, my company of 50 wants to implement a QMS according to ISO 9001:2000 standards. We want to achieve certification although we do not have a commercial product or service and will not until after well after the QMS is in place. Are there any accredited bodies that will certify the process w/o demonstration of product or service passing through? My understanding is that we can be "compliant" to the standard but not "certified". Can I get some help on this? Thanks.

:confused: Nick

I am a newbie to this site but I have to say you are all great! I learn a lot just by reading the posts.

Anyway, my company of 50 wants to implement a QMS according to ISO 9001:2000 standards. We want to achieve certification although we do not have a commercial product or service and will not until after well after the QMS is in place. Are there any accredited bodies that will certify the process w/o demonstration of product or service passing through? My understanding is that we can be "compliant" to the standard but not "certified". Can I get some help on this? Thanks.

:confused: Nick

Welcome to the Cove, Nick:D

It's not possible for a quality system to be either registered or compliant to ISO 9001-2000 if there is no product or service. Look at it this way: suppose you were a municipal building inspector, and someone who was planning on constructing a new building asked you to inspect and approve it before it was built.

Welcome to the Cove, Nick:D

It's not possible for a quality system to be either registered or compliant to ISO 9001-2000 if there is no product or service. Look at it this way: suppose you were a municipal building inspector, and someone who was planning on constructing a new building asked you to inspect and approve it before it was built.Jim, you are absolutely correct. But if the OP knows where to go, he will most definitely find a CB willing to certify "good intentions" as an implemented QMS. Even Nick himself thinks that he can have a QMS in place AND THEN, deliver a product. You can NOT have a QMS in place without a product. At best, you will have command media, trained people, equipment, etc... But you have to realize product, exercize the whole PDCA cycle before you can claim that you "have a QMS in place".

Not sure if I'm adding anything to Jim or Sidney's post..

An effective quality system is one that produces a good product or service. If you don't have an output, how do you know your process (or input) is good? So how could anyone honestly assess the system?

That is not to say that you cannot do something right now. You can begin with top management, determining what it is you are going to do, and how to measure the success. Maybe start developing a framework for the system, and determine how much resource it's going to take. Go ahead and begin some internal audit training. Can you not make some product/service right now? You could begin to understand your process and it's flaws.

You don't have to sit and twittle your thumbs and do nothing. But you'll need to be able to gauge if the system is effective by the output before you should consider certification.

We want to achieve certification although we do not have a commercial product or service and will not until after well after the QMS is in place.

What is your current specific situation? Are saying you in the process of setting up a new company?

Or... You specify "commercial". Do you currently make military or other type of product or service?

You're getting general responses. If you can be more specific in describing your situation we can provide more specific help.

What is your current specific situation? Are saying you in the process of setting up a new company?

Or... You specify "commercial". Do you currently make military or other type of product or service?

You're getting general responses. If you can be more specific in describing your situation we can provide more specific help.

Ah, nice to see someone else noticed the use of the word "commercial" and had similiar questions to what popped into my own head upon first glance.

However, there's nothing stopping the OP from developing a management system that conforms to the requirements of ISO 9001. In fact, doing so now might make the actual registration process more smooth when it comes time to actually go through the process.

I am a newbie to this site but I have to say you are all great! I learn a lot just by reading the posts.

Anyway, my company of 50 wants to implement a QMS according to ISO 9001:2000 standards. We want to achieve certification although we do not have a commercial product or service and will not until after well after the QMS is in place. Are there any accredited bodies that will certify the process w/o demonstration of product or service passing through? My understanding is that we can be "compliant" to the standard but not "certified". Can I get some help on this? Thanks.

:confused: Nick


1st.....Welcome to the Cove and feel free to use all that it has to offer. Read the material at the top and the help Threads we have here.

What do you do? You have to do something other than breathe and go potty.

Even if you are not now doing anything (not likely) you're planning to, therefore you do the same as everyone else. Plan to achieve customer expectations!

Now if you don't know what it is you do that is another story and would suggest that you stop doing it and start doing something more productive and definable (you'll make more money that way)

You may want to start out by getting a desk audit done on your Quality manual.

You may want to start out by getting a desk audit done on your Quality manual.

I must question how a desk audit on a stack of paper - which is more than likely a repeat of the standard - will help them in their quest to obtain ISO 9001 registration if there is no commercial output of their process.

If there is no product/service going through the process to truly validate that there is a quality management system in place, the Quality Manual is basically a bunch of theory (i.e., no real application of the described processes).

A desk audit will simply say "Yup, you said all the shalls" or "Nope, you're missing a shall from clause X.X." No value added, in my opinion, to the situation at this point in time.

A desk audit will simply say "Yup, you said all the shalls" or "Nope, you're missing a shall from clause X.X." No value added, in my opinion, to the situation at this point in time.

It depends upon your meaning of a 'desk audit'. Before I get into a company to help them I want to do a desk audit. The conversation with the client representative, as well as a review of various existing related documents and records, gives me a good idea exactly where they stand with respect to established systems. It is true that until you hit the floor you don't know if the systems are being followed, much less whether they are effective, but a desk audit tells me what I want to look at.

As far as this thread goes, until (unless) wolfn returns and clarifies his/her specific situation, we're all guessing in the dark

I am a newbie to this site but I have to say you are all great! I learn a lot just by reading the posts.

Anyway, my company of 50 wants to implement a QMS according to ISO 9001:2000 standards. We want to achieve certification although we do not have a commercial product or service and will not until after well after the QMS is in place. Are there any accredited bodies that will certify the process w/o demonstration of product or service passing through? My understanding is that we can be "compliant" to the standard but not "certified". Can I get some help on this? Thanks.

:confused: Nick
Interesting!

It would help to know a little bit more about what it is you plan to do ....

I remember in a previous life a large certification body registering a company that hadn't operated at the time of their assessment. The reason for them needing certification was it was a condition in an Invitation to Tender that all short listed companies had to be ISO certified. The company in question was a joint venture set up to go into this type of business.

A case of Catch 22. :confused:

There were some very specific caveats in their contract.

The company could only advertise their ISO certification in the particular ITT
They had to have a first visit soon after they started work on the particular contract
The customer was fully aware of the arrangements

On this basis they were assessed as compliant and subesquently confirmed this in follow up visits.

On this type of basis I would be happy to assess this type of company. Anyone else?

Thanks everyone for their responses. You confirmed what I had thought. Specifically, my company is transitioning from R&D to a product company. We have developed a prototype instrument in the life science arena and now are trying to build a commercial instrument. We believe that getting ISO certified will help with acceptance into the market.
I appreciate your help on this. You are great!

The company could only advertise their ISO certification in the particular ITT... ITT?:confused: Another TLA? On this type of basis I would be happy to assess this type of company. Anyone else?The problem is not ASSESSING, but CERTIFYING/REGISTERING a QMS that has NOT been demonstrated. When exactly did this organization get certified? Before the initial assessment? Or after? It is confusing. You said one of the pre-conditions for them to be certified was to have the initial assessment immediately after they started the engagement. And they had to be CERTIFIED to bid on the job. So, they got certified without an assessment? I am confused. :confused:

Thanks everyone for their responses. You confirmed what I had thought. Specifically, my company is transitioning from R&D to a product company. We have developed a prototype instrument in the life science arena and now are trying to build a commercial instrument. We believe that getting ISO certified will help with acceptance into the market.
I appreciate your help on this. You are great!

Nick, thanks for the response. ISO will enhance your products acceptance into national/international markets. All I am suggesting to you is keeping your eye on the correct goal. One must learn to walk before running. An effective QMS will not happen overnight. You can start right now assuring your system is what it is supposed to be. IMO, R&D by it's very nature, tends to not be as monitored/recorded as the production process needs to be. You will probably need to observe the processes a lot more, and identify variables that were not monitored previously.

Where are you with your system would you guess? 30%? 70%?

We are just beginning the QMS process. Our goal is to have a system in place that can follow product within 6-8 months. Many of the procedures are in place already but we will need to conduct a Gap assessment and go from there. We are beginning to work on a Quality Policy and will begin developing our Quality manual.

ITT?:confused: Another TLA? Sorry, Sidney, I thought I'd covered that with the capitals in the previous sentence but ITT is "Invitation to Tender"

The problem is not ASSESSING, but CERTIFYING/REGISTERING a QMS that has NOT been demonstrated. When exactly did this organization get certified? Before the initial assessment? Or after? It is confusing. You said one of the pre-conditions for them to be certified was to have the initial assessment immediately after they started the engagement. And they had to be CERTIFIED to bid on the job. So, they got certified without an assessment? I am confused. :confused:

In this case the first assessment was carried out against all applicable clauses of ISO 9001.1994 (as it was at the time - I did say it was a while ago!) before they responded to the ITT (;) ).

The company was then certified with a contractual arrangement for a further assessment around 3 months after work on the contract started. This assessment covered all the other clauses.

I am still happy this is a valid approach (with the caveats posted before). What about the other CB / Registrar representatives? :agree1:

Sorry, Sidney, I thought I'd covered that with the capitals in the previous sentence but ITT is "Invitation to Tender" That's usually referred to as "RFQ" (Request for Quote) in the US, hence the confusion.

In this case the first assessment was carried out against all applicable clauses of ISO 9001.1994 (as it was at the time - I did say it was a while ago!) before they responded to the ITT (;) ).

The company was then certified with a contractual arrangement for a further assessment around 3 months after work on the contract started. This assessment covered all the other clauses.

I am still happy this is a valid approach (with the caveats posted before). What about the other CB / Registrar representatives? :agree1:

It's not clear whether this example is apropos of the OP. Did the company you refer to have actual operating processes and products? If so, there's no comparison. If not, the "certification" granted was a crock, frankly, and just represented an opportunity for the CB to grab the contract.

That's usually referred to as "RFQ" (Request for Quote) in the US, hence the confusion.
We use the RFQ TLA as well, Jim. The only difference with a Tender is it is usually a one hit approach where the tenderer puts their best bid in and the best tender is chosen.

In theory you don't revise a tender but a quote you can always go back and renegotiate.



It's not clear whether this example is apropos of the OP. Did the company you refer to have actual operating processes and products? If so, there's no comparison.
A bit more information has come in from the OP. There are similarities (and differences). The company I am describing had processes in place for the construction services they were providing. They did not have any evidence that these processes were working effectively because they had never used them in anger.
If not, the "certification" granted was a crock, frankly, and just represented an opportunity for the CB to grab the contract. In your own inimitable fashion, Jim, you've hit the nail on the head. From memory the company went out to a range of CBs and chose their CB based on quotes and approach. There were a range of CBs who were prepared to certify this company.

Now IMHO the ability to be flexible and offer a company certification in this type of situation is not "grabbing the contract."

Interested to hear what others think .....Now where's the "retreat to the bunker" emoticon?

They did not have any evidence that these processes were working effectively because they had never used them in anger.That is an expression we don't see every day over here. I think Randy misunderstood it, when he was introduced to this British terminology...Could it be?:tg:

I am a newbie to this site but I have to say you are all great! I learn a lot just by reading the posts.

Anyway, my company of 50 wants to implement a QMS according to ISO 9001:2000 standards. We want to achieve certification although we do not have a commercial product or service and will not until after well after the QMS is in place. Are there any accredited bodies that will certify the process w/o demonstration of product or service passing through? My understanding is that we can be "compliant" to the standard but not "certified". Can I get some help on this? Thanks.

:confused: Nick


Yeah, I'm sorry, I mis-spoke a bit here.

You want to register a system prior to its operation? I dunno if that could honestly be done.

There are 3 Dimensions to the audit process, and you have to be able to pass an audit to get a certificate.

...Audit of Design (We look at the design of the system through the documentation that has been developed for it according to whatever the applicable requirements are. This may be called the document review or many other things. In general we refer to this as a Stage 1 Audit). This can be done, but it won't get you registered, it only opens the door.

...Audit of Implementation (We look at how the Design has been implemented and whether or not it has been implemented according to the Design. This is an operational audit which requires us to see things being done according to the procedures developed for operating the system. people got to be interviewed, we need to look at stuff, kick over the trrash can and all that. We'll ask ourselves..."Is this thing working?") This is normally called the registration audit or Stage 2 audit. This audit may not be possible based upon what you've said.

....Lastly, there is the Audit of Effectiveness. (This audit actually is done concurrent with the Audit of Implementation and looks to see if the system is performing according to the design parameters, whatever they may be. A great deal of the evidence needed here will come from the records generated by the organization either from meeting the requirements of the applicable standard or from any other requirement determined by the organization where evidence of meeting it is necessary. We're looking at performance of the system, it's elements and the ability of the system in meeting requirements). Odds are this isn't possible yet either.

I know that some of the above may seem to be "gobblety-goop", but in laymans terms that's generally how it works. You actually have to have everything up, running and doing so effectively and be able to prove it in order for the registration thing to happen.

In the 'Old Days'...

The bottom line was you needed at least 3 months of records (preferably 6) as evidence to be able to show that systems function as designed. This was rarely an issue for established companies, even when they did some system changes to comply with ISO 9001.

There is the evidence of systems functioning as designed, and there is the internal audit aspect. You have to do a full round of internal audits prior to the registration audit. Technically you cannot do a round of internal audits for the same reason - You need to audit functioning systems.

Like I say - The 'old litmus' test was at least 3 months of records (preferably 6) from functioning systems.

In the 'Old Days'...

There is the evidence of systems functioning as designed, and there is the internal audit aspect. You have to do a full round of internal audits prior to the registration audit. Technically you cannot do a round of internal audits for the same reason - You need to audit functioning systems.

Like I say - The 'old litmus' test was at least 3 months of records (preferably 6) from functioning systems.You are correct. The IAF Guidance to Guide 62 requires the organization to be able to demonstrate results from the internal audit and management review activities BEFORE they could be certified. The 3-month rule "tribal requirement" is legendary. However, it is not supported anywhere by an explicit requirement of the accredited certification process. Also, certain activities, such as assembly and inspection activities generate a lot of records. Others, such as design development, supplier monitoring, etc. might take much longer than 3 months to generate evidence and records that they are effectively implemented.

The key thing to remember IMHO is that, certification should mean that the system is implemented and in conformance with a given standard. And evidence of that is available. To certify a system that has not been implemented is like giving a birth certificate to a fetus in it's 3rd month of gestation.

To certify a system that has not been implemented is like giving a birth certificate to a fetus in it's 3rd month of gestation.The key is: "There must be evidence of systems functioning as designed". The necessary time frame is a function of the specific systems, the specific company scenario / systems; basically the length of time necessary to be able to prove all relevant systems are operating as designed.

For simple businesses a short time frame is sufficient, while more complex businesses require more time.

I am disappointed you compare a fetus to a business system.

The key is: "There must be evidence of systems functioning as designed". The necessary time frame is a function of the specific systems, the specific company scenario / systems; basically the length of time necessary to be able to prove all relevant systems are operating as designed.Agreed. The only thing I would say is that these rules are self imposed by the industry on itself. If they make no sense (as in my example) then the industry can issue itself a waiver to operate outside those rules. Under strictly controlled conditions.

For simple businesses a short time frame is sufficient, while more complex businesses require more time. Very true.

I am disappointed you compare a fetus to a business system.Am I the only one who thinks Sidney's analogy was a good one? It is a fact of life (no pun intended) that everything has its life cycle. This kind of term is used everywhere from reliability to marketing.

Anything that helps concepts to be better understood is a positive IMHO.

On an entirely separate but related topic are we on the cove starting to apply double standards. :notme: I remember on other threads arguing against organisations having limited scopes assessed and certified. Isn't this a case of exclusion of clauses 7.2, 7.4, 7.5, 7,6 with a view to bringing them in at a later stage! :read:
:2cents:

Am I the only one who thinks Sidney's analogy was a good one? It is a fact of life (no pun intended) that everything has its life cycle. This kind of term is used everywhere from reliability to marketing.

I just don't want to get any 'activists' upset about the analogy.

I am disappointed you compare a fetus to a business system.I just don't want to get any 'activists' upset about the analogy.Marc, I am fully aware of the Cove rules of engagement to avoid political, religious and non-related contentious issues. The intent of my analogy was not to compare a fetus to a business system. My intent was to try to make a point about sequence of events and it's chronology. If I offended anyone, my apologies.

Marc, I am fully aware of the Cove rules of engagement to avoid political, religious and non-related contentious issues. The intent of my analogy was not to compare a fetus to a business system. My intent was to try to make a point about sequence of events and it's chronology. If I offended anyone, my apologies.

I can't see how anyone could have possibly been offended, but perhaps it might be best to go back to the analogy in my original response in this post--a building inspector issuing an occupancy permit before the building is constructed.

Marc, I am fully aware of the Cove rules of engagement to avoid political, religious and non-related contentious issues. The intent of my analogy was not to compare a fetus to a business system. My intent was to try to make a point about sequence of events and it's chronology. If I offended anyone, my apologies.

Yeah - I'm kinda touchy right now. I got another 'nasty gram' a couple days ago over something I thought was silly. It just sorta hit me as something some people might take offense to. Sorry to be so touchy, but as you know it's not very often I do say something about content these days.

No big deal.

Yeah - I'm kinda touchy right now. I got another 'nasty gram' a couple days ago over something I thought was silly. It just sorta hit me as something some people might take offense to. Sorry to be so touchy, but as you know it's not very often I do say something about content these days.

No big deal.

Your job is not an easy one. I think I could speak for most in saying that we greatly appreciate your efforts (and your moderators), and the excellence you maintain at the Cove. As you alluded to, as with many situations, there may be things going on in the background that others are unaware of. This behind-the-scenes activities can/do affect your actions.

I did not see the analogy in any light other than it's relational intent. However, I appreciate you erring on the side of integrity and neutrality.

Carry on, Captain!!

It's ARBOR DAY! Everyone go plant a tree!!

Isn't this a case of exclusion of clauses 7.2, 7.4, 7.5, 7,6 with a view to bringing them in at a later stage! Paul, exclusions can only be considered as long as they do not affect the organization's ability or responsibility, to provide product that meets customer and applicable regulatory requirements. I don't see how any organization can exclude 7.2 or 7.5. For them to exclude 7.2 it would mean they do not have customers. If you exclude 7.5, you don't have a product. Either way, in both instances, they would not have a QMS.

Paul, exclusions can only be considered as long as they do not affect the organization's ability or responsibility, to provide product that meets customer and applicable regulatory requirements. I don't see how any organization can exclude 7.2 or 7.5. For them to exclude 7.2 it would mean they do not have customers. If you exclude 7.5, you don't have a product. Either way, in both instances, they would not have a QMS.

OK, Sidney. I admit the post was a little tongue in cheek (we really must get an emoticon that shows that. :lol: ).

There is a serious point though. If they don't have any customers (at this stage) can you exclude the clause, similarly if they don't make anything, can you exclude the clause? It doesn't affect their ability to satisfy customer requirements because, at this stage, there are none!

Bear in mind the company want to extend their system to cover these areas when they become appropriate.

I believe they are meeting all the principles of quality assurance (as they apply to them at the time) and are worthy of assessment and (potentially) certification.

IMHO there are too many companies out there who have certificates that don't deserve them because they are complying with the letter of the law but not the spirit.

The examples we are discussing are of companies who embrace the spirit of the standard but (through no fault of their own) cannot meet the letter of the requirements (that some bureaucrats think define certification).

Saturday morning rant over - I can get on with my weekend! :lmao:

I can't see how anyone could have possibly been offended, but perhaps it might be best to go back to the analogy in my original response in this post--a building inspector issuing an occupancy permit before the building is constructed.

OK. I'm presuming you have the sames systems in the US. Over here you can get planning permission that looks at what you want to do and issues a permit to go ahead and build or extend your house - based on what you intend to use in the way of materials and standards of construction. That is probably more akin to the certification we are talking about here.

Or another construction example. Our Wembley stadium has just been completed (late and over budget but that is the subject of another "quality" thread). The infrastructure and systems are in place but before they can officially open the doors they have to get a general safety certificate to show that it can be used.

There is a serious point though. If they don't have any customers (at this stage) can you exclude the clause, similarly if they don't make anything, can you exclude the clause? It doesn't affect their ability to satisfy customer requirements because, at this stage, there are none!You are painfully aware of the chart from ISO 9001:2000
http://elsmar.com/gif/PDCA_CHART.gif

If there are no customers providing input and feedback, the model can not be fulfilled, thus no meaningful implementation nor certification can be achieved.

You are painfully aware of the chart from ISO 9001:2000 It is never painful, Sidney - you know that! :lol:


If there are no customers providing input and feedback, the model can not be fulfilled, thus no meaningful implementation nor certification can be achieved.

I never said it was perfect!

There is still a point to debate about some sort of recognition for a system that is planned and should work, subject to a range of caveats to prevent misuse of their "certification."

Effectively it is a positive report after stage 2 of a 3 stage audit. There is evidence for a range of processes (including design and all the "planning activities"), processes are in place for some of the other product realization activities. So at the end of stage 2 this effort can be recognized. With certification hoefully confiremed after stage 3 when evidence of implementation is available.

I can't remember what form the recognition took at the time (whether it was a certificate or a positive audit report).

So for those reasons with careful thought and control I would be prepared to offer some sort of recognition to a system like the two we are discussing. OK, Sidney, I might stop short of an ISO 9001 certificate - certainly an accredited one! :agree:

Just going back to the model for a second does that mean all ISO 9001 registered companies should be able to show evidence of management commitment? ;)

Just going back to the model for a second does that mean all ISO 9001 registered companies should be able to show evidence of management commitment? Management is always committed to:

improve their bonuses and compensation packages
finding ways to exploit the workforce in a (as much as possible)legal way
reduce their responsibilities
reduce their workload
finding scape goats whenever something goes wrong...
etc...:tg:

I remember in a previous life a large certification body registering a company that hadn't operated at the time of their assessment. The reason for them needing certification was it was a condition in an Invitation to Tender that all short listed companies had to be ISO certified. The company in question was a joint venture set up to go into this type of business.

A case of Catch 22. :confused:

There were some very specific caveats in their contract.

The company could only advertise their ISO certification in the particular ITT
They had to have a first visit soon after they started work on the particular contract
The customer was fully aware of the arrangements

On this basis they were assessed as compliant and subesquently confirmed this in follow up visits.

On this type of basis I would be happy to assess this type of company.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Yes, it's definitely somewhat outside the norm. But given those very specific caveats - including the customer being fully aware of the arrangements -- this sounds like a quite reasonable response to a unique situation and customer need.

I think it unreasonable to level 'contract grabbing' accusations on that basis. I'd see it as a reasonable, customer focussed and sensible response to a unique situation.

And presumably their customer wanted this supplier, as they chose them...

If there are no customers providing input and feedback, the model can not be fulfilled, thus no meaningful implementation nor certification can be achieved.

My site's been down that exact path. When transitioning over to ISO 9001:2000, we reviewed the Clause 7 exclusion options and realized "Hey! Sales in Clause 7 and Sales is not based on our site...we can exclude!"

Our Registrar said no. They were unwilling to accept Sales as a "key supplier' - providing us with a service of our Customers requirements - mainly because Sales also generates our Production Schedule.

So our cert applies to our site address and our two Sales locations located off-site.

Some Registrars are willing to accept Sales as a supplier - according to a few of our other ISO 9001 registered sites and others are willing to accept Sales is part of the process but not audit them as they're covered under the scope of my site's certificate (i.e., subject to annual internal audits and regular external audits).

Management is always committed to:

improve their bonuses and compensation packages
finding ways to exploit the workforce in a (as much as possible)legal way
reduce their responsibilities
reduce their workload
finding scape goats whenever something goes wrong...
etc...:tg:


While this is off-topic, I do think that this kind of blanket 'management bashing' is about as useful as the sort of 'quality managers are always idiots' and 'all certifiers are hopeless and out for the $$ only' type of statement. What's next? Every poor person is lazy? Women are always weak and cry? etc. etc.

Very black and white, not supported by any data, and not true.

Yes, there are some managers like that. There are, like any other field, good bad and indifferent ones.

But I've had the pleasure and privilege of meeting many who aren't, and who are (like the rest of us) human beings trying to do the best job they are capable of, within the constraints that apply.

If you really hold that as a complete truth, then why bother to persist in the profession, as nothing would ever change.

If you really hold that as a complete truth, then why bother to persist in the profession, as nothing would ever change.Thanks for straightening me up and whipping my cynical view of management. I must decide if the fight is hopeless and take action accordingly. In the meantime, I would like to keep contributing to the Cove. :bigwave:

While this is off-topic, I do think that this kind of blanket 'management bashing' is about as useful as the sort of 'quality managers are always idiots' and 'all certifiers are hopeless and out for the $$ only' type of statement. What's next? Every poor person is lazy? Women are always weak and cry? etc. etc.

While I agree that we always have to be careful about stereotypes, and maybe things are different where you are, but Deming once said that he would like to be remembered as someone who spent his life trying to keep American manufacturing from committing suicide. He was also well known for his contention that "managers get paid to make things worse." It's no secret that American business management suffers greatly from a lack of leadership skills. I think Sidney was calling a spade a spade.

Very black and white, not supported by any data, and not true.

Au contraire, there's lots of data. If you just use the American automotive industry as an example (and perhaps a gross one, but not very gross), bad management has pounded great companies into near-oblivion. We have access to the best technology, highly skilled people, and all the necessary resources, yet the industry is out on the ledge, ready to jump. If you can find a root cause that doesn't lead back to poor leadership and bad management in general, I love to hear about it.

Yes, there are some managers like that. There are, like any other field, good bad and indifferent ones.

"There's good and bad in everything" is true, but it isn't particularly useful information. Bad managers have gained ascendancy, and they'll take all the good ones with them over the ledge if we all turn our heads in denial. It's just not helpful to don rose-colored glasses and sing "Everything is Beautiful" when everything is going down the toilet.

But I've had the pleasure and privilege of meeting many who aren't, and who are (like the rest of us) human beings trying to do the best job they are capable of, within the constraints that apply.

If you really hold that as a complete truth, then why bother to persist in the profession, as nothing would ever change.

Well, some of us need to eat, and some of us believe that if we do enough to expose the folly of bad management, things will get better. We can't change anything with platitudes and with our heads in the sand, though.

This is a good thread... Can we all play nice??:)

To me, what I am sensing is that we have different opinions on exactly what is being certified. Let's assume we have ten equally experienced/ competent auditors, five on each side. Side A feels they can view the documentation system and assess they have a competent/effective system (no product required). Side B feels there is no way to assess a competent system without having evidence of quality product/service (product required).

Is this accurate? I think it's a very worthy topic to discuss/debate. I just want to make sure I'm clear on what the opposing opinions are.

Is this accurate? I think it's a very worthy topic to discuss/debate. I just want to make sure I'm clear on what the opposing opinions are.Brad, the basic discussion here is if an organization that has not realized product yet can be CERTIFIED (not assessed). Under the accreditation rules of engagement for management system certification, I believe they can not.

Having documents in place will never equate to an effective and deployed QMS. Some people mistakenly believe that a QMS is a collection of documents.

I should add that is perfectly OK for an R&D organization to be certified. As long as they clearly identify what their "product" and customers are.

It's no secret that American business management suffers greatly from a lack of leadership skills. I think Sidney was calling a spade a spade....

Hmm. Jim, you are not responding to the actual issue - the actual statement of Sidney's that I took issue with.

Instead, you try to set up various strawman topics ("business management suffers greatly from a lack of leadership skills"... "bad management has pounded great companies into near-oblivion" etc). And then attack as though I had argued against these points of view (presumably very strongly held by you).

I didn't.

That "take the topic/s you want to sound off about and duck the one you don't" is a technique oft used in politics. But I'm surprised at you using it, as it's also a failure in 'Critical Thinking 101'.

Jim, do please read carefully what was said by Sidney, and what I said in response. It's not the strawmen you're trying on.

I doubt you can provide undeniable, irrefutable evidence to demonstrate that what Sidney actually said is 100% true. In all cases. Without exceptions. (In fact, it'd be an interesting piece of research to try & construct to reach those conclusions.)

But if you can or wish to attempt it, then pray do so. I'd be most interested in seeing it. I suggest in another thread, so that this one doesn't get so off-topic.

And, Jim, being polite, if you disagree, rather than resorting to personal denigration or derogatory comments, would be welcome as acceptable professional behaviour. I don't throw insults your way when I disagree with something you say, and I'd prefer you extended me the same courtesy.