Guys what is the latest count of ISO 9000 2000 certs held globally and count of TS certs held globally (TS being a subset of 9000 2000)

Thanks

Guys what is the latest count of ISO 9000 2000 certs held globally and count of TS certs held globally (TS being a subset of 9000 2000)

Thanks

Welcome to the Cove :bigwave:

Have a look HERE (http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1089)

Thanks for timely response

It might be interesting to note there are a number of folks who have made anecdotal claims that although the number of registrations world-wide is rising, the number in the USA is flat or even falling.

I stress these claims are anecdotal, not backed by hard data. One of these folks has written in the member section of the ASQ Forums (this is only an excerpt for "fair use purposes" and to emphasize the point of the writer's comments which ramble a little):It's reasonable to assume that the registrars are suffering because new contracts have virtually flatlined. Our calculations show that on average, US registrars added less than 8 clients each in all of 2006. That figure assumes a equal spread of new clients over all 70 US certification bodies; in reality, the bulk of those new clients went to the so-called "Big Ten" registrars, meaning the other sixty or so either flatlined -- or lost -- clients in that year. With ten years of data showing nothing but negative trending in US ISO 9001 uptake, it's almost a mathematical certainty that the number for 2007 will be worse -- much worse, given that there was a drop by an order of magnitude between 2005 and 2006 alone.

As always, ANAB and the certification bodies dance a snakelike wriggle designed to dodge any blame or to avoid taking any responsibility. ANAB's former President, Robert King showed a maddening lack of understanding of his own industry by blaming potential ISO 9001 end users, saying companies "don’t truly appreciate the value that management systems can bring to their organization." It's certainly rare to see a company blame its failure on the stupidity of the consumer in private, never mind blaring this kind of stuff openly and in print.
Part of my own response to his post wasLots of interesting points, but it would be a much more effective piece if you tied it together with some speculation about the reasons for decline/flatlining of ISO [and, I presume, TS and AS) registrations among North American organizations.

You could even do a "Paul Harvey" coda:
"And now . . . for the rest of the story!"

To get away from the "rant" and "spam" accusations, though, you do need to have some attributions. Would it be difficult to call and/or write CEOs of organizations which have dropped their registration and get a quote "WHY?"

I note folks trying to market medical devices around the world are FORCED by "harmonization" policies of foreign governments to submit to ISO13485 registration by a select group of registrars in order to market products in those countries (regardless of whether they had previously been selling the same devices in that country BEFORE the harmonization policy took effect.) (Essentially, what I mean by this is the foreign governments do not grant 'grandfather' status to companies and/or their products despite years of problem-free sales and usage.)Probably, the point of including this anecdote here is that the press releases by organizations, whether ISO, itself, or by Accrediting Bodies and the organizations they accredit, certifying bodies (registrars) are, by definition, self serving, and "spin" the story in the best possible light for themselves.

A famous newspaper has gotten a lot of mileage out of the slogan, "Inquiring minds want to know."

Well, although I am a quality professional by the definition accepted by many folks, I don't have a real clue WHY ISO registrations are up. The fact is not one certifying body is required to list ALL its registrations in public as a condition of being accredited. Research into the methodology behind the ISO statement of rising registrations finds the facts more than a little fuzzy, since there is no single database which contains a list of ALL registrations, especially not sorted by type.

I'd be willing to bet money, but I'm not sure we could determine the true answer, on the question, "Why do MOST organizations choose to have themselves registered to one or more International Quality Management System Standards?

My bet would be "They perceive the marketplace of their current and prospective customers demands registration as a condition of being in the supply chain."

Famously, the organization frequenty held up as a paragon of excellent Quality Management Systems, Toyota, (when last I checked) is NOT registered to ISO 9001:2000 nor to TS 16949. What does that tell you about the true importance or necessity of being registered?

Here is what I have found only for the North America sector:

ISO 9000 Certificate Count Tops 50K in North America
QSUP Releases Big Ten Registrar Rankings
The total number of active ISO 9000 registration certificates in North America topped 52,746 as of the first quarter of 2008, according to data collected by QSU’s companion publication, the ISO 9000 Worldwide Certified Company Directory and WhosRegistered.com Global, the largest public listings of certified suppliers in the world.

The North American certificate total, which includes both accredited and unaccredited certificates issued by accredited certification bodies, represents a decline of 8,690 certificates over the same time period one year earlier. The decline is largely the result of administrative changes to the database, which were intended to improve the reliability of data

Their website: www.qsuonline.com where this information was taken from.

...Famously, the organization frequenty held up as a paragon of excellent Quality Management Systems, Toyota, (when last I checked) is NOT registered to ISO 9001:2000 nor to TS 16949. What does that tell you about the true importance or necessity of being registered?



This is often stated, but I think it is appropriate to put it in context. My understanding is they reviewed it and determined their internally developed systems already encompassed those same requirements and practices. Their view was not that ISO provides no value, per se. Rather it duplicates the same things already in their system, and thus would add no additional value. That is the story as I read it. It paints a significantly more balanced picture.

It is also important to remember, the Japaness participated in the development of TS-16949. While some don't mandate it, they would not particpate if they were opposed to it.

PS: The latest info I saw on certs showed a significant growth globally, and relatively flat growth in the USA. I don't recall the specifc number.

This is often stated, but I think it is appropriate to put it in context. My understanding is they reviewed it and determined their internally developed systems already encompassed those same requirements and practices. Their view was not that ISO provides no value, per se. Rather it duplicates the same things already in their system, and thus would add no additional value. That is the story as I read it. It paints a significantly more balanced picture.

It is also important to remember, the Japaness participated in the development of TS-16949. While some don't mandate it, they would not particpate if they were opposed to it.

PS: The latest info I saw on certs showed a significant growth globally, and relatively flat growth in the USA. I don't recall the specifc number.Doesn't that mean ANY organization could develop an effective QMS without registering to ISO Standards?

Doesn't that mean ANY organization could develop an effective QMS without registering to ISO Standards?

Yes, of course. As has often been discussed on this forum. All ISO did was collect the common best practices of effective organizations, and codify them into a baseline standard that could be applied around the world.

It is just common sense practices. Packaging it made it easier for more companies to standardize on it. The fact remains that many, many companies clearly have not implemented it well, and do not achieve the full benefit intended.

Out of my 3 employers, I have registered 2. To this day, the best system I saw was the the one place where it wasn't registered but LIVED the principles of ISO (or TS or whatever you want to quote).

Continuous improvement wasn't dictated...it was part of the culture. I could have had them registered in 3 months the system was so good. Not so for the 2 registered companies - they needed to be dictated to (and still do :()

Doesn't that mean ANY organization could develop an effective QMS without registering to ISO Standards?

Yes; for example I have hardly seen Pharmaceutical organizations who have an excellant QMS and yet not register to ISO. Pharma, for example, make their system in line with FDA / local regulations and thats what is expected from these organizations.

The registration environment has changed in the last 10 years. More companies are manufacturing offshore. The telecom market which was a great booster of ISO has shrunk considerably.
In the 90's, you could not get on a bidder's list without ISO 9001. Now, many companies are not even asking. The price of the product or service is the bottom line.

Standards such as AS9100 and ISO 13485 will continue to grow since if you want to be part of the aerospace or medical device markets, you must conform to these requirements.

I expect ISO 9001 certifications in North America to shrink further.

The registration environment has changed in the last 10 years. More companies are manufacturing offshore. The telecom market which was a great booster of ISO has shrunk considerably.
In the 90's, you could not get on a bidder's list without ISO 9001. Now, many companies are not even asking. The price of the product or service is the bottom line.

Standards such as AS9100 and ISO 13485 will continue to grow since if you want to be part of the aerospace or medical device markets, you must conform to these requirements.

I expect ISO 9001 certifications in North America to shrink further.I agree with this:
I expect ISO 9001 certifications in North America to shrink further.
but why do some feel there is a justification for organizations at the top of a supply chain (automotive, for example) to DEMAND registration from the downstream folks in the supply chain regardless of where the organization is located? We've pretty much beat to death here in the Cove the notion ISO registration has any real correlation with product quality, since plenty of data exists to link ISO-registered organizations with non-conforming (sometimes even harmfully nonconforming) products.

The reality is the top of the supply chains are lazy and are more interested in the internal savings from having supply chains ALL march to the same tune in terms of documentation and simple [??] processes like FMEA and PPAP and prefer to let the suckers [suppliers] pay for some third party to attest to the conformity of documentation and processes rather than dictate the systems and pay the cost of the top tier organization sending "fact checkers" to confirm compliance.

The boxer, Ali, claimed he used "rope a dope" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope-a-dope) - this involuntary registration to ISO Standards sounds a lot like a form of rope a dope, but who is really the dope hanging on the ropes taking punches?

rather than dictate the systems and pay the cost of the top tier organization sending "fact checkers" to confirm compliance.That model, as well, has proven to be very innefective and, at times, counter productive, in terms of developing suppliers. "MicromanagentiesTM" afflicts a large number of customer auditors.

I already posted on another thread, if you believe Mr. Joe Branky's data when he talks about the quality gains in the Automotive world, with TS-16949 certified suppliers averaging 10-15 DPPM (approaching true 6 sigma levels), the TS certification scheme has (and continues to) delivered palpable quality gains in the automotive supply chain.

As someone that represents a CB, I am less concerned with the number of certificates in the market place than with the confidence such certificates bring to their users.

<Snip>

As someone that represents a CB, I am less concerned with the number of certificates in the market place than with the confidence such certificates bring to their users.

Thank you, Sidney. I think that's a very refreshing point of view.

Unfortunately, in my experience, the certificate is not an indicator of quality.

Thank you, Sidney. I think that's a very refreshing point of view.

Unfortunately, in my experience, the certificate is not an indicator of quality.

No, unfortunately, by itself it is not. However, at the same time, a college degree is not a guarantee a job candidate is excellent either. But, we don't disparage the institution as valueless. We set about to develop ways to screen degreed individuals to find the worthwhile ones.

Unfortunately, in my experience, the certificate is not an indicator of quality.A QMS certificate is supposed to signify that the certified supplier has a quality system which:
· is robust enough to identify customer and regulatory requirements
· consistently deliver products compliant to such requirements
· allows appropriate actions to be taken based on customer and regulatory feedback, and,
· provides for continual improvement of their operation, system, process and products.

When certificates become unreliable, that is an outcome of a dysfunctional system, with a lot of blame to spread around: accreditors, certifiers, consultants, suppliers and last but not least, customers, the users of the QMS certificates.

One thing that people should remember: a QMS certificate was NEVER intended to be a replacement for supplier monitoring. A QMS certificate should be used as a COMPONENT of supplier oversight. On that specific point, I agree with Wes. Lazy and misguided customers mistakenly invoke QMS certification for their suppliers, believing that will solve their problems and "absolve' them from the responsibility of monitoring and developing their suppliers. Crass mistake.

But, we don't disparage the institution as valueless.I agree. Unfortunately, sometimes, I have to repeat myself in these endless discussions about the value of "independent" certification of management systems.

If we were to make a bold statement that certification is valueless, we should then recognize this as the "pyramid scheme of the ages." For over 30 years now, we have created, developed, refined and multiplied the certification sector. If this process brought no value to a percentage of stakeholders, why do we keep perpetuating it? Why huge economic sectors (Automotive, Aerospace, Telecommunications, to name a few) create their own "certification scheme"?

There are profound dysfunctions and problems in the accredited certification process, just like we have huge abuse and mismanagement of the tax payer money. Still, most people don't want to abolish the taxation system. They want the problems fixed.

Certification of Management Systems can be a beneficial undertaking for Society at large. But the structural problems have to be dealt with. And that would involve the users of certificates doing their share. They are the ones that really can effect change. But, and unfortunately, a large percentage of the users of such certificates are clueless on how to keep themselves, suppliers, certifiers and accreditors accountable to the INTENT of management system certification.

I agree. Unfortunately, sometimes, I have to repeat myself in these endless discussions about the value of "independent" certification of management systems.

If we were to make a bold statement that certification is valueless, we should then recognize this as the "pyramid scheme of the ages." For over 30 years now, we have created, developed, refined and multiplied the certification sector. If this process brought no value to a percentage of stakeholders, why do we keep perpetuating it? Why huge economic sectors (Automotive, Aerospace, Telecommunications, to name a few) create their own "certification scheme"?

There are profound dysfunctions and problems in the accredited certification process, just like we have huge abuse and mismanagement of the tax payer money. Still, most people don't want to abolish the taxation system. They want the problems fixed.

Certification of Management Systems can be a beneficial undertaking for Society at large. But the structural problems have to be dealt with. And that would involve the users of certificates doing their share. They are the ones that really can effect change. But, and unfortunately, a large percentage of the users of such certificates are clueless on how to keep themselves, suppliers, certifiers and accreditors accountable to the INTENT of management system certification.Perhaps you are suggesting the primary problem is one of ignorance of the INTENT and the primary solution therefore is one of EDUCATION for all parties in the scheme. If so, it is an interesting premise.

Since we have somewhat derailed the thread from a simple question of the number of registrants, it would probably be worthwhile to explore ways and means of validating the "root cause" (is it just ignorance of the true INTENT?) and determining the Corrective Action to put the original plan back on track.

Alternately (as we continually remind folks performing internal audits), perhaps there IS something fundamentally wrong with the plan (scheme of registration and third party audit) and the plan should be changed.

Corrective Action or Opportunities for Improvement anyone?:)

I agree. Unfortunately, sometimes, I have to repeat myself in these endless discussions about the value of "independent" certification of management systems.

If we were to make a bold statement that certification is valueless, we should then recognize this as the "pyramid scheme of the ages." For over 30 years now, we have created, developed, refined and multiplied the certification sector. If this process brought no value to a percentage of stakeholders, why do we keep perpetuating it? Why huge economic sectors (Automotive, Aerospace, Telecommunications, to name a few) create their own "certification scheme"?

There are profound dysfunctions and problems in the accredited certification process, just like we have huge abuse and mismanagement of the tax payer money. Still, most people don't want to abolish the taxation system. They want the problems fixed.

Certification of Management Systems can be a beneficial undertaking for Society at large. But the structural problems have to be dealt with. And that would involve the users of certificates doing their share. They are the ones that really can effect change. But, and unfortunately, a large percentage of the users of such certificates are clueless on how to keep themselves, suppliers, certifiers and accreditors accountable to the INTENT of management system certification.

Agreed on all points. There would be a right way to fix this, neat, clean effective...and then there will the patchwork quilt of pieces that will get fixed, piece by piece over time. It won't be as good as it could be, but I expect we will see forward progress.

Certification of Management Systems can be a beneficial undertaking for Society at large. But the structural problems have to be dealt with.
Agreed.

And that would involve the users of certificates doing their share. They are the ones that really can effect change. But, and unfortunately, a large percentage of the users of such certificates are clueless on how to keep themselves, suppliers, certifiers and accreditors accountable to the INTENT of management system certification.

How can we clue them in?

How can we clue them in?Maybe a massive marketing campaign. Elaborate, expand on the information available at http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/management_standards/iso_9000_iso_14000/more_resources_9000/9001supchain.htm#introduction
would be a start.

Maybe a massive marketing campaign. Elaborate, expand on the information available at http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/management_standards/iso_9000_iso_14000/more_resources_9000/9001supchain.htm#introduction
would be a start.

Good idea.

I see a funding issue here.

Would it not be in the best interests of the CBs and big consulting houses to shake loose a few pennies?

Such a campaign might drive renewed interest in the USA.

Would it not be in the best interests of the CBs and big consulting houses to shake loose a few pennies?Then you would assume that all CB's and consultants work towards the same goals. I am sure you know that a large percentage of of the registrars and consulting houses are not concerned with the long term sustainability of the certification process. Their concern is exactly the opposite: to sign as many contracts and make as much profit in the short term, as possible, totally unconcerned with the damage they inflict to the concept of "independent' certification.

This sector is very fragmented and even the CB's that are working seriously to maintain the integrity of the process are too competitive to allow for any potential collaborative approach.