I'm a newbie and have been tasked with implementing ISO 9001:2000 in our Business Unit although our company as a whole has not implemented ISO in any form. Can this be done?

Specifically we are providing a Logistics/Inventory Management service to support our construction development projects.

We have a new facility that we are constructing that will be let's say our "Logistics Hub" and this facility should be setup for ISO certification.

Does anyone suggest going another route of ISO compliance rather than ISO 9001:2000?

THank you for the responses in advance.

NSXfan

Hello NSXFan,

Welcome to The Cove Forums! :bigwave: :bigwave:

I'm a newbie and have been tasked with implementing ISO 9001:2000 in our Business Unit although our company as a whole has not implemented ISO in any form. Can this be done?

Yes. It would be good to know for you why Top Management made that decision. It should be part of an overall business strategy. That strategy and supporting actions, necessary resources, etc., is often lacking. Implementation of an ISO 9001-based quality management system can not be a one-person effort.

Specifically we are providing a Logistics/Inventory Management service to support our construction development projects.

Can work very well.

We have a new facility that we are constructing that will be let's say our "Logistics Hub" and this facility should be setup for ISO certification.

Just to obtain a certificate of registration or to implement an effective quality management system?

Does anyone suggest going another route of ISO compliance rather than ISO 9001:2000?

Not sure what you mean here....

Thank you for the responses in advance.

NSXfan

Glad to be of some help.

Stijloor.

Welcome NSXFan,

From a practical and business point of view, I think it depends on how the business units are structured - independence versus closely inter-related.

In my country, many banks claimed certification to ISO 9001. If you look carefully at the fine prints, you'll find that most of them have their 'Credit Card' division certified but not the rest. The reason is that the rest are so closely related and inter-twinned.

Others like some insurance companies have the service part of their organization certified. Nobody cares about the other parts of their business because they are highly regulated.

Just check with some of your local Certification Bodies. They'll be more than pleased to guide you.

Fan:

Separate business units can usually be certified with no problem, but it will depend on the degree of independence between groups. If there is too much overlap between functions (training, HR, purchasing, etc.) it may be difficult to segregate activities. This can lead to "scope drift" and can cause a lot of problems in your program's administration (and may hurt your chances for registration), particularly where one activity is "ISO" and the next subsequent activity is not.

Hope this helps,

Mark

In my country, many banks claimed certification to ISO 9001. If you look carefully at the fine prints, you'll find that most of them have their 'Credit Card' division certified but not the rest. The reason is that the rest are so closely related and inter-twinned.

This is the whole of the problem. The idea with scope and exclusions in ISO 9001.2000 was that the organization didn't pick and choose where they applied the QMS and obtain certification for those bits.

Then ISO 9000.2005 came out and blew that completely out of the water with the definition of organization. Hence you get (occasionally deliberate) misleading advertising of certification for small parts of a large organization implying the whole is certified. :mad:

I'm a newbie and have been tasked with implementing ISO 9001:2000 in our Business Unit although our company as a whole has not implemented ISO in any form. Can this be done?

Specifically we are providing a Logistics/Inventory Management service to support our construction development projects.

We have a new facility that we are constructing that will be let's say our "Logistics Hub" and this facility should be setup for ISO certification.

Does anyone suggest going another route of ISO compliance rather than ISO 9001:2000?

THank you for the responses in advance.

NSXfan

You can........but should you? What I mean is that unless your management is looking for a certificate to 'run up the flag pole', then beware.

One reason for using ISO 9001 (I don't think there's another 'route', as you ask) is to give confidence to management and customers (and poss. regulatory agencies like safety folks) that the processes of the organization work in concert with each other to deliver what was planned. So doing one part of the business, in isolation (or without a plan to roll it out in other areas) should be viewed with suspicion, IMHO.

Do your leadership understand what this is about? Have they some grounding in ISO 9000 and understand what they're asking you to embark upon? If not, I'd recommend some help, either for you to pass on, or directly to the management.

This is the whole of the problem. The idea with scope and exclusions in ISO 9001.2000 was that the organization didn't pick and choose where they applied the QMS and obtain certification for those bits.

Then ISO 9000.2005 came out and blew that completely out of the water with the definition of organization. Hence you get (occasionally deliberate) misleading advertising of certification for small parts of a large organization implying the whole is certified.I will respectfully disagree. The justifiable exclusion of processes towards claiming compliance with ISO 9001 has nothing to do with the organizational boundaries going for certification. Imagine a huge organization such as GE, with hundreds of plants, hundreds of thousands of employees, numerous business units. To imply that GE would have to be certified in it's totality or none whatsoever is nonsensical.

Obviously a certificate should clearly identify the organization and the scope of certification, but most "users" of the certificates are uneducated to scrutinize the certificates they rely on. If you find a certificate that is misleading, the appropriate parties should be contacted, with correction and corrective action expected.

I will respectfully disagree. The justifiable exclusion of processes towards claiming compliance with ISO 9001 has nothing to do with the organizational boundaries going for certification. Who said anything about exclusion of processes? I am just saying that drawing artificial boundaries around the "easy" bits is a farce and the definition of "organization" in 9000.2005 allows it - more particularly the " .... or part thereof."

Imagine a huge organization such as GE, with hundreds of plants, hundreds of thousands of employees, numerous business units. To imply that GE would have to be certified in it's totality or none whatsoever is nonsensical.I'll let the nonsensical go! :D In principle why shouldn't an organization with the resources of GE wait until it has implemented ISO across all its business processes before it claims compliance "to ISO 9001" - surely that is the commitment of the organization's leaders?

This is an extreme example and within large companies there are often smaller incorporated bodies that can separately achieve certification.

Obviously a certificate should clearly identify the organization and the scope of certification, but most "users" of the certificates are uneducated to scrutinize the certificates they rely on. If you find a certificate that is misleading, the appropriate parties should be contacted, with correction and corrective action expected.There's the rub. This industry is not very good at policing itself. Any organization can innocently or deliberately mislead its customers and the customer is unlikely to recognize the fact or know they have course to complain.

I'll let the nonsensical go! :D OK, next time, I will use the term rubbish to qualify the idea, not the proponent:tg:In principle why shouldn't an organization with the resources of GE wait until it has implemented ISO across all its business processes before it claims compliance "to ISO 9001" - surely that is the commitment of the organization's leaders? Paul, an organization as complex and diverse as GE will always have some business unit in a state of flux, being acquired or divested and, very likely, for many potential reasons, some small group might not be in compliance with ISO 9001. So, your proposal of "all or nothing" would be counterproductive if GE had to demonstrate to their compliance to ISO 9001, via certification.

OK, next time, I will use the term rubbish to qualify the idea, not the proponent:tg::D

Paul, an organization as complex and diverse as GE will always have some business unit in a state of flux, being acquired or divested and, very likely, for many potential reasons, some small group might not be in compliance with ISO 9001. So, your proposal of "all or nothing" would be counterproductive if GE had to demonstrate to their compliance to ISO 9001, via certification.
I have worked for and audited large and complex organizations (not of the size of GE but complicated and large enough!). Change is a fact of life and is even allowed under ISO 9001. :lol:

Taking your example of a business unit in a state of flux - if that had its own certification would you expect the registrar to pull the cert.? IMHO the registrar would work with them to ensure the change was being managed and that the customer didn't suffer. There are ways for organizations to demonstrate they are operating within the spirit (and letter) of ISO in times of change - they could even call it continual improvement!

The "its complicated" argument is nonsensical - sorry - not acceptable. :)

As discussed earlier the argument is redundant as ISO allows you to define your organization as the team that waters the flowers in the staff restaurant in the stores of your distribution division. :lmao:

In my last corporate position, we had over 80 locations. Depending on the goods or services provided, some were ISO 9001, AS9100, TS16949 or 17205, while others were 10CFR50 App B and even NBIC "R", "VR" and "NR" stamp holders.

While the organization was ISO-compliant overall, the certification we achieved was as-needed by the unit or division, based on specific business concerns and cusomer requriements. Making a blanket statement that an entire organization should be ISO 9001 certified (particularly one as diverse as GE) doesn't make good business sense to me.

Mark

Thank you for the responses everyone.

To answer a few questions posed to me...

Stijloor -I still need to find out specifically why our business unit wants to implement ISO9001:2000 and whether or not its to seek certification only or to implement a quality management system. I've only been in the organization for 2.5 months and have not yet been exposed to all the reasoning for such. Will inquire shortly though...

Does anyone suggest going another route of ISO compliance rather than ISO 9001:2000? - what I meant here was is there a Logistics related ISO certification I'm not aware about? I've searched ISO and can't find squat!

Harry -Just check with some of your local Certification Bodies. They'll be more than pleased to guide you - we don't have a certification body that I know of for the United Arab Emirates according to the IAF.

Andy N - You can........but should you? What I mean is that unless your management is looking for a certificate to 'run up the flag pole', then beware.

One reason for using ISO 9001 (I don't think there's another 'route', as you ask) is to give confidence to management and customers (and poss. regulatory agencies like safety folks) that the processes of the organization work in concert with each other to deliver what was planned. So doing one part of the business, in isolation (or without a plan to roll it out in other areas) should be viewed with suspicion, IMHO.

Do your leadership understand what this is about? Have they some grounding in ISO 9000 and understand what they're asking you to embark upon? If not, I'd recommend some help, either for you to pass on, or directly to the management.
Our business unit is quite independent from the company in that we run our own construction projects under the company name but still operate as a seperate BU. We share HR and procurement but otherwise independent. I believe that we are seeking ISO certification, etc. because we are to adhere to and set highly qualified safety standards. We are operating a Logsitics Hub which will involve setting standards for ideal Logistics movement, policies, procedures, etc. Our customers would be developers perse...but we want to show a high standard as such not seen anywhere else.

Keep the responses coming if you all can and in the meantime I'll seek further clarification on the reasoning behind why we are seeking either certification or creating a QMS or both.

NSXfan

Harry -Just check with some of your local Certification Bodies. They'll be more than pleased to guide you - we don't have a certification body that I know of for the United Arab Emirates according to the IAF.

You need to improve your exposure to relevant trade information. Definitely, SGS, LRQA & DNV have presence in UAE. The certification business may be handle by an office nearby because the middle east is now a fast growing market.

You need to improve your exposure to relevant trade information. Definitely, SGS, LRQA & DNV have presence in UAE. The certification business may be handle by an office nearby because the middle east is now a fast growing market.

Harry - SGS, LRQA, and DNV stand for?

Harry - SGS, LRQA, and DNV stand for?

These are Certification Bodies:

SGS (http://www.sgs.com/systems_and_services_certification?lobId=5554)
LRQA (http://www.lr.org/Industries/LRQA/Services/Certification/)
DNV (http://www.dnv.com/services/certification/managementsystem/)

Stijloor.

Stijloor,

Thanks for the links and I've now recorded them for future use.

Cheers,
NSXFan

Quick question though...

Do you start the ISO 9001:2000 project by purchasing the standard first?

NSXFan

Quick question though...

Do you start the ISO 9001:2000 project by purchasing the standard first?

NSXFan

That would be an excellent idea. In fact it would be a good idea for you and other interested parties in your company to take a class to become familiar with exactly what you are planning on getting involved with.

On the topic of compliance rather than certification. My experience has been that companies that claim compliance really are not very complaint. Without the discipline imposed from audits by the registration auditors there is little incentive to live by the standard.

Customers are aware of this, and do not tend to view compliance as anything near registration.

What are your opinions of this package?

http://www.the9000store.com/complete.aspx

I don't knolw anything about that kit so I can't specifically comment. I can say that I get called into companies that tried to approach registration as a do it yourself project and discovered that they didn't begin to understand what they were getting into and needed help.

Even if you do try to do it yourself, I strongly suggest that you take a class first. How else are you going to understand what you need?

Making a blanket statement that an entire organization should be ISO 9001 certified (particularly one as diverse as GE) doesn't make good business sense to me.
Thanks for the reply, Mark. I didn't actually say that GE should be ISO 9001 certified. My post was in direct response to Sidney's reply. The point is that complexity is not an excuse when, as a large organization, you have the resources to get it done. Hardly indicates commitment to the principles of ISO 9001 if you cherry pick which bits you apply it to.

Unless you view it as a licence to trade?

Thanks for the reply, Mark. I didn't actually say that GE should be ISO 9001 certified. My post was in direct response to Sidney's reply. The point is that complexity is not an excuse when, as a large organization, you have the resources to get it done. Hardly indicates commitment to the principles of ISO 9001 if you cherry pick which bits you apply it to.

Unless you view it as a licence to trade?


Paul:

I think we agree. Complexity isn't a good excuse. All functions should be held accountable to the same standards of quality.

Mark