Hi, I am looking for advice from forum experts on implementation of ISO 10002:2004 in an organization. I basically need to know from where to start and stages involved till final implementation/certification.

Thanks for the help in advance.

Note: ISO 10002:2004 is: Quality Management -- Customer Satisfaction -- Guidelines for complaints handling in organizations

<-- Look at the Live Webinar advertised.

DNV will be addressing this standard.

Just sign up, they will advise you to download a software and they will remind you.:D

Just sign up, they will advise you to download a software and they will remind you.Thanks. The webinar will go over ISO 10002:2004 requirements for an effective complaint handling system. I will be delivering that webinar.

The software you refer to is probably part of the application you must have in your computer to be able to follow the webinar. Just for clarification, it is not a DNV software, but part of the Readycomm (http://elsmar.com/Forums/www.readycomm.com) requirements for running web conferences.

I wasn't aware that this document was one you could have certification for. It's a guidance document: Quality management — Customer satisfaction — Guidelines for complaints handling in organizations. There are no "shalls" in the standard, only "shoulds."

I have a copy, and I've used it as guidance on getting the most out of a very important part of any QMS. I've never looked at trying to implement it wholesale and then verify conformity to the "shoulds" listed. I think it should be considered as possibly a "best practice" and consider implementing the "shoulds" that are appropriate to my organization.

I wasn't aware that this document was one you could have certification for. And who is offering certification to it? Actually paragraph 0.2 of ISO 10002 states that such document is not intended for certification or contractual purposes.

Thank you very much for the replies antivenom and Sidney Vianna. I have already registered for the webinar. But my boss is behind me and I am in need of this at the earliest. It would be of great help if you assist me in this regard.

And who is offering certification to it?
Nobody. I was answering this:

I basically need to know from where to start and stages involved till final implementation/certification.

I came across a BSI global link that talks about certifying 10002. I am unable to place the direct link here as it doesn't allow me.

That's interesting. Is this it?
http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Assessment-and-certification-services/management-systems/Standards-and-Schemes/ISO-10002/Steps/

Exactly that is link.

I came across a BSI global link that talks about certifying 10002. I am unable to place the direct link here as it doesn't allow me.

Hi Srikanth, are you referring to this - ISO 10002 Customer Satisfaction, Complaints (http://www.bsi-global.com/en/BSI-UK/Assessment-and-Certification-services/Management-systems/Standards-and-Schemes/ISO-10002/) in which there is tab for Certification ?

Btw, this is an example where a Hong Kong Govt department got certified to ISO 10002 - http://www.csb.gov.hk/hkgcsb/csn/csn70/70e/close_2a.html

Hi Ajit, yes its the same link I came across. I do know that it is mentioned in the guidelines manual that it is not intended for certification or contractual purposes. But surprisingly BSI itself offers certification and Hong Kong Govt department got certified as well by HKQAA.

I guess I was wrong. There are companies that are issuing certificates to ISO 10002. As far as I can tell though, they are not accredited. Here are a couple of examples I found:

http://www.borcelik.com.tr/turkce/hakkimizda/ISO_10002_Sertifika.pdf
http://www.egytrans.com/10002.pdf

As far as I can tell though, they are not accredited. Here are a couple of examples I found:
http://www.borcelik.com.tr/turkce/hakkimizda/ISO_10002_Sertifika.pdf
http://www.egytrans.com/10002.pdf Certainly they are not accredited. It is interesting to see that, at least a couple of large CB's would certify organizations to a standard which states it should not be used for certification purposes. Makes you wonder if they actually read the document or suffer from SRD - "selective reading disorder". :tg:

Certainly they are not accredited. It is interesting to see that, at least a couple of large CB's would certify organizations to a standard which states it should not be used for certification purposes. Makes you wonder if they actually read the document or suffer from SRD - "selective reading disorder". :tg:

So what happens in this case when CBs issue certificates of an ISO standard that is actually not meant to be certified ?:confused:

:confused: yeah, makes me wonder too… their certificates are useless as they are not accredited…

...so, what is the purpose of having it on the first place? :(

So what happens in this case when CBs issue certificates of an ISO standard that is actually not meant to be certified ?:confused:Pretty much, nothing. Since these are non-accredited certificates, nobody can file a legitimate complaint with an accreditation body.

An interested party could approach the CB's who have issued such certificates and ask for a clarification. Very likely, such requests would be ignored. Or, the CB could come back and basically state that the customers knowingly requested the certificates, even though the standard (ISO 10002) states it should not be used for certification purposes.

Another interested party could approach the certified organizations and ask why did they seek certification to a standard which was not meant to be used for certification purposes. Maybe their top brass is unaware of the fact.

Or someone could create a thread in a related blog with worldwide participation to see if representatives from the CB's would care to answer.;)

So, for the most part, nothing will happen. The certified organization is happy about the fact they are certified against a non-certifiable standard. The CB's are happy for the revenue.

…but these CB’s should at least be sensible & professional enough to let their clients be aware that these types of certifications will have no significant values on their organization…

:rolleyes: I’m thinking out loud… because I’m 100% sure that no organization would take certifications that have no significant value on their system… unless it is free…

:mg: hey, maybe it’s free!?!

:confused: yeah, makes me wonder too… their certificates are useless as they are not accredited…
Who says they're useless? Any certificate issued by a recognized body is worth something.

...so, what is the purpose of having it on the first place? :( I can't speak for the people having a certificate but most organizations want some recognition for work they put in, my guess that is why they have asked for an assessment and certification.

Pretty much, nothing. Since these are non-accredited certificates, nobody can file a legitimate complaint with an accreditation body. But as you go on to say, Sidney, they can complain to the organization or its "certification body." Let's not forget certification was in place and working effectively long before accreditation came into being.

There is, in fact, a school of thought that says the credibility of certification has gone backwards since accreditation levelled the playing field and any Tom, Dick or Harry could set themselves up as a CB and "equivalent" to one of the big dogs.

An interested party could approach the CB's who have issued such certificates and ask for a clarification. Very likely, such requests would be ignored. Or, the CB could come back and basically state that the customers knowingly requested the certificates, even though the standard (ISO 10002) states it should not be used for certification purposes.As an "interested party" I have sent this in to one of the CBs concerned and I will obviously let the interested parties on the cove know the result! :D

As for the standard being "not for certification." Although my CB has no plans for offering certification to these standards I do wonder why ISO expends so much of "our" time and effort in developing standards that seek to provide guidance and then specifically states - "not intended for certification". Why? Surely anyone who gets any value form the standard in whatever way is just recovering some of the development costs.

Another interested party could approach the certified organizations and ask why did they seek certification to a standard which was not meant to be used for certification purposes. Maybe their top brass is unaware of the fact. Or perhaps they don't care? They may just be pleased that their customer care has been assessed and recognized as meeting international standards.

Or someone could create a thread in a related blog with worldwide participation to see if representatives from the CB's would care to answer.;)Again I can't pretend to represent any of the CBs involved but I can see how unaccredited certification to these standards could add some value.

So, for the most part, nothing will happen. The certified organization is happy about the fact they are certified against a non-certifiable standard. The CB's are happy for the revenue.Please forgive me for splitting hairs but the fact they have a certificate shows the standard is able to be certified to (please excuse my poor English, I've only been using it all my life :lol: ). The mere act of putting "not intended for certification" of itself means nothing.

As for the certification revenues - I haven't seen a huge swell of Covites (?) naming and shaming (;)) certificate holders. My guess is they are just responding to customer demand - in much the way CBs followed the QMS, EMS and OHSMS markets.

Now Sidney, you're not just trying to sling mud at a major competitor are you? :nope:

As for the standard being "not for certification." Although my CB has no plans for offering certification to these standards I do wonder why ISO expends so much of "our" time and effort in developing standards that seek to provide guidance and then specifically states - "not intended for certification". Why? Surely anyone who gets any value form the standard in whatever way is just recovering some of the development costs.

SNIP......

Now Sidney, you're not just trying to sling mud at a major competitor are you? :nope:Well Paul, if you follow this thread, you will see that someone else found about the ISO 10002 certificates. I have to admit I was surprised about it. I did not expect to see CB's offering certification to a document which states to the contrary. If you think it makes sense to have systems certified to a guidance standard, you should be offering certification to ISO 9004, as well. A gimmick that has been tried a number of times, with no success. When ISO releases the ISO/TS 10004 Quality management -- Customer satisfaction -- Guidelines for monitoring and measuring document should organizations seek certification against that, as well?

Concerning the mud slinging comment: To question when competitors issue certificates against a non-certifiable document is mud-slinging? Can't I question some practices that seem out of place, from my perspective? You proposed (a number of times) a "name & shame thread", but you infer that I am the one badmouthing competitors?

Most of the documents under the ISO 9000 family of documents (http://www.tc176.org/pdf/N817R6DocumentStatusReport2007_12.pdf) are guidance documents, which contain suggestions and advice, through the use of the word should, instead of auditable, verifiable requirements with their "shalls and musts". If we do have problems with credibility and heterogeneity of conformity assessments to auditable standards, imagine what happens when you have attestations of conformity to guidance documents....

One of the enduring criticisms (which I agree with) on "all things ISO 9000" is the blind focus on certification. Whatever comes as a guidance document is, for the most part, ignored. Wait until you guys finish ISO 10018.....

Unfortunately, most CB's are mono-thinkers. They see certification as the only answer, thus, they certify whomever to whatever (as long as they get paid), even in cases when the standard itself states that is not meant to be used for certification purposes.

There are other delivery roles, modes of engagement, outside of the "traditional" certification protocol. But when your only tool is a hammer, every problem resembles a nail. The CB community needs visionary leaders to find new answers. Certification is NOT the only answer.

Yesterday, I delivered a webinar on ISO 10002 and described how my employer can assist an organization in using ISO 10002. And it is not via a certification approach.

Yesterday, I delivered a webinar on ISO 10002 and described how my employer can assist an organization in using ISO 10002. And it is not via a certification approach.


I attended this seminar and found it useful, particularly the slides 'AIMS' and 'Guiding Principles'. Both talked about the value a process of customer compaint handling that is developed and implemented with exclusive committment and focus will add to the customer confidence and the organization's own continuous improvement process. ISO 10002 provides a mean for a more disciplined approach to this process.
I think companies dealing with high number of clients will greatly benefit from ISO 10002. If a company seeks a third party to ensure they are implementing ISO 10002 effectively and usefully, I do not see any harm. As such, a CB agreeing to evaluate and issue a non-accredited certificate is, in my opinion, justified (assuming that the concerned parties know that ISO 10002 is not a requirement and is being used for value addition).

I attended this seminar and found it useful, particularly the slides 'AIMS' and 'Guiding Principles'. Both talked about the value a process of customer compaint handling that is developed and implemented with exclusive committment and focus will add to the customer confidence and the organization's own continuous improvement process. ISO 10002 provides a mean for a more disciplined approach to this process.Thank you for the kind feedback. And I agree 100% that ISO 10002 provides for a great framework for organizations who wish to have a robust complaint handling system in place. The "irony" is: The better an organization implements ISO 9001, the less it needs ISO 10002...:tg: If a company seeks a third party to ensure they are implementing ISO 10002 effectively and usefully, I do not see any harm. I agree wholeheartedly.:agree1: As such, a CB agreeing to evaluate and issue a non-accredited certificate is, in my opinion, justified.I respect your opposing view, but let me ask you: Why do you think the ISO 10002 document contains a statement to the effect that it should not be used for certification nor contractual purposes?

When we know for a fact that the "standardization of interpretation" amongst auditors verifying actual requirements leaves a lot to be desired, I can only imagine the disparity of approaches we would have when auditing to a guidance document.

Since certification is primarily used for "external consumption", I am concerned that ISO 10002 certificates (or any certificate issued to a guidance standard) could be just a marketing ploy.

Don't get me wrong, as I said before, I do believe that organizations can gain from expert guidance and assessment of a complaint handling system against ISO 10002. But "certification" might not be the best protocol to deliver it. IMHO.

Since certification is primarily used for "external consumption", I am concerned that ISO 10002 certificates (or any certificate issued to a guidance standard) could be just a marketing ploy.

Don't get me wrong, as I said before, I do believe that organizations can gain from expert guidance and assessment of a complaint handling system against ISO 10002. But "certification" might not be the best protocol to deliver it. IMHO.

I appreciate your response; there is valid substance for not supporting certification of Guides or Standards that have not been recommended by ISO for certification.
I think the process of getting certification brings in added commitment from all related employees and management. If an organization opts for 'getting better' and uses the external assessment as a driver for adding discipline and commitment from all, and as a measure of achievement, it should be supported. However, the organization should clearly communicate that this is an optional/volunteer route taken by them for improvement.

I also think the subjectivity of the assessment by auditors is a major issue and relates equally to all standards and guides, intended or not indended for certification and should not be a reason in this case. Of course, how to reduce that subjectivity is a big challenge.

And even more people get certified to ISO 10002 (http://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm/sidZAWYA20090714084453/DTCM%20gets%20ISO%20certification%20for%20complaints%20handling%20system/lok084400090714), a standard that states it should not be used for certification purposes.

And even more people get certified to ISO 10002 (http://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm/sidZAWYA20090714084453/DTCM%20gets%20ISO%20certification%20for%20complaints%20handling%20system/lok084400090714), a standard that states it should not be used for certification purposes.

Excellent--a certification with a built-in nonconformity. :tg:

Excellent--a certification with a built-in nonconformity. :tg:Hadn't thought about that perspective. What would be correction and corrective action? :cool:

But.....wait a minute. If the document contains no requirements, there can't be no nonconformity....

I can certify your organization to ISO 10002 for a bargain price. The certificate will be unaccredited though. If you want an accredited certificate it will cost extra though, because I'll need to pay a buddy to set up a separate LLC to accredit me. Or maybe I can have IAB handle the accreditation? :notme:

I can certify your organization to ISO 10002 for a bargain price. The certificate will be unaccredited though. If you want an accredited certificate it will cost extra though, because I'll need to pay a buddy to set up a separate LLC to accredit me. Or maybe I can have IAB handle the accreditation? :notme:

I would have to see a sample certificate first. I want it to be fancy-looking.

I would have to see a sample certificate first. I want it to be fancy-looking.
Of course. It will be on high grade paper with a shiny gold seal. I can also apply official-looking accreditation marks from ANAS and UKAB.

Of course. It will be on high grade paper with a shiny gold seal. I can also apply official-looking accreditation marks from ANAS and UKAB.

The watering-down of the ISO whatever standard "registration" process continues.... No wonder that credibility is questioned...:frust::frust:

Stijloor.

Of course. It will be on high grade paper with a shiny gold seal. I can also apply official-looking accreditation marks from ANAS and UKAB.:lmao: Let me help you with the logos:
http://www.antoniodipietro.com/immagini2/Anas.jpg
http://g.virbcdn.com/i/resize_575x575/Image-31265-132409-252308361_ed7cd90bee.jpg

Hey! I want in on this! I have a brother who can print those certificates for a really low fee. He will use something which looks like gold, but is very cheap....He can also provide a small date counter which changes the date on the certificate (if monuted in a frame we can supply too) every three years by wireless once we get the client to pay their renewal fees.....

:lmao: Let me help you with the logos:
Thanks Sidney! You've captured the very essence of what I was looking for!

That ANAS logo; doesn't it look like a roll of toilet paper on fire? :notme:

That ANAS logo; doesn't it look like a roll of toilet paper on fire? :notme:
Yes, it does. Have you seen this phenomenon before? :mg: