Most organizations attain ISO 9001 (AS9100/TS-16949/TL-9000, etc...) certification to satisfy a customer requirement.

Realizing the tremendous disparity in the business model of Certification Bodies (albeit most are accredited to 17021), some people believe that certificates issued by different CB's bring different levels of confidence.

Since the actual users of the ISO 9001 certificate is not the registrant, but, in reality, their customers, should customers influence the decision of their supplier's certification body?

I think it's OK for a customer to share with a supplier their experience with registrars, but not to require suppliers to use any particular registrar. It depends on how you define "influence," so my answer is yes. It would be no to limiting suppliers to certain registrars.

I voted no because this will lead quickly to a no-win situation for the supplier when multiple customers try to dictate different registrars.

If the customer has to have input it should be on the order of "I will not recognize the following registrars (limited number allowed) for (state legitimate reason)" This at least would allow for a field of acceptable registrars from which to choose.

However, I think allowing control versus input would be starting down a very slippery slope.

I feel that the customer should not have any influence with what Registrar to use. For AS9100 Supplier would use the OASIS database to select the Registrar.

The major aerospace supplier in my area picked a registrar a few years ago and sent a letter to all their suppliers indicating that the "chosen registrar" will be contacting each supplier and will be responsible for checking the status of all suppliers.

This resulted in a huge market share advantage for this registrar.

In the last few months, there has been some movement away from this registrar due to not being able to schedule audits in a timely manner.

I have voted as NO.

The situation is similar to that of an auditor,who during an audit cannot suggest. Experience is that, invariably during audits, one hears the auditee state that we did it because the last auditor suggested.

This literally Boomerangs.

Similarly, it would be best to leave it to the supplier,so that there is no chance for excuses, saying that you suggested and we took the decision since you are our valuable customer.

Under these circumstances the customer can independently and freely conduct the second party audit to its advantage and meet its objective.

If it's a customer requirement you have no choice...You guys remember 7.2.1 and the policy don't you?...

Old story...Want my money, then do as I ask as long as it's legal and ethical

Having recently gone through the selection process for ISO 22000 and in the future 9000, 14000 and OHSAS, I did a straw poll of some of our larger customers. In the end it did little to influence the decision because most were not certified themselves and did not care. My only real purpose was to make sure there were no customers that would have a concern with a particular registrar.

I don't feel customers should dictate, but no matter what you say, they have at least a small level of influence.

If you want the business and they won't budge....

I have had customers that made their preferences abundantly clear. We sit down and talk about it and see if concessions can be made. So far, we have not had to change registrars.:D

The major aerospace supplier in my area picked a registrar a few years ago and sent a letter to all their suppliers indicating that the "chosen registrar" will be contacting each supplier and will be responsible for checking the status of all suppliers.

This resulted in a huge market share advantage for this registrar.

In the last few months, there has been some movement away from this registrar due to not being able to schedule audits in a timely manner.Yes, I remember we discussed that situation, here in the Cove.

Thanks for all the comments, so far. One of the least practiced buzzword management issues of the last decade is supply chain management.

If an organization does not care how their suppliers select and monitor their suppliers, sooner or later, that will affect them (the customer). When it comes to registrar selection, some people have no idea of a meaningful criteria to use. And many end up choosing the path of least resistance, which, for the most part, adds no value from the customer's perspective.

While I would be very leery of a customer mandating a specific CB for a supplier, influencing means helping the supplier using a meaningful criteria during the selection process.

Any additional comments?

Dear Sidney,

In our company one agency carries out Supplier Sustainability Assessment as per EICC Code for all our suppliers all over the world. The same agency carries out EICC assessment of our own manufacturing units. To an extent this provides a uniform approach to EICC assessment throughout the organization; of course we will not be able to address individual assessor variations in assessments.

As for as certification (registration) goes our company encourages individual units to go for the same certification agency for ISO-9001, ISO-14001 and OHSAS - 18001 certifications; the units have the flexibility to heed to this advice or not. This approach takes care of various local demands of Governments, for example, that require manufacturing units to have them certified by Government agencies.

We do not insist on (or recommend to) the supplier to select a particular certification agency (registrar) for their management systems certification.

My personal opinion is that it is not practical for customers to decide on the certification agency for the suppliers' management systems, especially when the supplier has many customers of differing views.

With kind regards,

Ramakrishnan

I voted NO - in my working span of over 20 years, I have never come across a situation where the Customer influenced my Organization registrar.

I gare-un-teeeee that if Wal Mart told their suppliers to "use the xyz company" because we trust them more than any other or else we drop you, the suppliers would bust their humps and wear out the auditors for the "xyz company";)...And it don't matter not one bit what y'all think:nope:

I gare-un-teeeee that if Wal Mart told their suppliers to "use the xyz company" because we trust them more than any other or else we drop you, the suppliers would bust their humps and wear out the auditors for the "xyz company";)...And it don't matter not one bit what y'all think:nope:

You're right, but there aren't too many companies that have the power over suppliers that Walmart does. I've mentioned it here before--back in (iirc) 1998 when GM had mandated QS9000 registration for all of its suppliers, the deadline was about six months away and only about 30% of the suppliers had made it. GM let it be known that Entela was its "registrar of preference" and the pace quickened somewhat, although the deadline was eventually extended.

I gare-un-teeeee that if Wal Mart told their suppliers to "use the xyz company" because we trust them more than any other or else we drop youIn the business world, that is known as "customer designated source", or "customer designated supplier". In those instances, the customer is not influencing the selection, but making the decision, instead.

I voted yes, hanging my choice on my understanding of the nuanced meaning of "influence" versus a word like "dictate" or "demand" and I explain why I agree with the word "should."

Influence may be strong or mild, but the head of a supply chain owes it to himself to assure he understands the links in his chain and how they work to meet his requirements. Sometimes, higher levels in a supply chain take it upon themselves to provide training or advice to the lower levels to help them meet those requirements. Certainly, that training or advice "should" influence a sensible, rational choice of registrar among several competent options, but not dictate which single one.

In the business world, that is known as "customer designated source", or "customer designated supplier". In those instances, the customer is not influencing the selection, but making the decision, instead.

So what?

Oh, and thanks for the business lesson. I guess I can toss my MBA into the trash now seeing as all that book larnin' done went wasted.

You want my money? Then please do as I ask as long as it ain't immoral, unethical or illegal.

So what?My previous post was intended to emphasize that the thust of the poll is to enquire if people believe customers should influence the supplier CB selection process, but not to go as far as making the selection nor mandating a choice. And, as I tried to explain, the concept of customer designated source indeed exists in the business world, but it was not what I envisioned when I started this thread.

Yes. I can’t see any problem with that. I believe that the customer would want a reputable registrar. It’s a challenge to the registrars to uphold its integrity and superb image like any other suppliers.

I voted yes, simply because when we selected our first CB, we where in negotiations to be bought out by a German company. We strategically chose a German based CB (TUV) to give our QMS a "little more credibility".

The sale never went through and we have recently changed CB´s with no influence of any external customer - it was a simple comercial / techincal decision.

My previous post was intended to emphasize that the thust of the poll is to enquire if people believe customers should influence the supplier CB selection process, but not to go as far as making the selection nor mandating a choice. And, as I tried to explain, the concept of customer designated source indeed exists in the business world, but it was not what I envisioned when I started this thread.

Maybe this will refresh your memory....Business begins with customer requirements and ends with customer satisfaction.

As long as there are no ethical issues and no laws are broken the customer can mandate what they choose if they are willing to pay for it and the supplier in accepting payment is mandated to supply that which is required in the manner required. All just part of supply and demand.

Maybe this will refresh your memory....Business begins with customer requirements and ends with customer satisfaction. Unbelieveable. What a concept. We should have books written to support this theory. :rolleyes: As long as there are no ethical issues and no laws are broken the customer can mandate what they choose if they are willing to pay for it and the supplier in accepting payment is mandated to supply that which is required in the manner required. All just part of supply and demand.It baffles me why you insist on the MANDATE aspect, when, as I have tried to emphasize several times herein, that I am talking about INFLUENCING.

There may be other factors involved as well. A Canadian customer could request that you to use a CMDCAS authorized registrar (for medical devices) - or choose another supplier...

None of our customers suggested (or mandated :tg:) anything, but while deciding on a registrar, we saw many of our customers on one of the registrar's client list. So, though indirectly, we were indeed influenced by our customers' choice of registrar.

If there is any question if the thoroughness, seriousness and competence of the supplier CB could affect the customer, just read the Supplier doesn't think drawings need to be controlled (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=34502) thread.

It baffles me why you insist on the MANDATE aspect, when, as I have tried to emphasize several times herein, that I am talking about INFLUENCING.

Don't you realize that they can be one and the same to some folks?..In the military a suggestion to do something is exactly the same as being ordered to do so and it can hold true with someone who is willing to part with some of their profit on your behalf in a business realtionship.

As a young law enforcement officer making a violent felon arrest many times I had to say "Stop, your under arrest"...That was a Mandate...The Influence for them to do so peaceably was my .357 Smith or 12 guage Winchester pointed in their direction. They were required by law to do as I ordered...it was mandatory, but they were not legally bound to pay attention to the weapon in my hand, so the weapon just influenced their decision (they just didn't know that). Essentially my verbal command and the firearm were considered one and the same by the soon to be underpaid state employee.

Don't you realize that they can be one and the same to some folks?..In the military a suggestion to do something is exactly the same as being ordered to do so and it can hold true with someone who is willing to part with some of their profit on your behalf in a business realtionship.

As a young law enforcement officer making a violent felon arrest many times I had to say "Stop, your under arrest"...That was a Mandate...The Influence for them to do so peaceably was my .357 Smith or 12 guage Winchester pointed in their direction. They were required by law to do as I ordered...it was mandatory, but they were not legally bound to pay attention to the weapon in my hand, so the weapon just influenced their decision (they just didn't know that). Essentially my verbal command and the firearm were considered one and the same by the soon to be underpaid state employee.

Influence:
Customer: Have you considered using supplier x for the (product) you sell to us? We've had good experience with them.

Supplier: No, we haven't, but our current supplier has been with us for a long time, and there have never been any issues.

Customer: OK, thanks.

Mandate:

Customer: As a condition of doing business with us, you must get your (product) from supplier x.

See the difference? Note that allusions to military orders and police work are pointedly irrelevant. Sometimes customers make suggestions and sometimes they make demands. This thread is about the former and has nothing to do with the latter.

Edited to add: The fact that some suppliers interpret suggestions as mandates is also irrelevant.

Jim is technically correct about suggestion and mandate, but Randy understands the tone of the suggestion which lets the recipient of the suggestion know it is, in fact, a mandate.

I've certainly been on both sides of a conversation where a printed transcript could be put on the front page of the NY Times and look completely innocent, but both parties understood something entirely different was taking place.

Sometimes it's extortion, other times a bribe, and often it's just a plain threat:"Follow my suggestion or else!" with no specificity on the else.

Thirty years ago, even twenty years ago, racism and gender discrimination were rampant throughout the corridors of power - the perpetrators were rarely overt - always just a "wink and a nod" among friends. (Friends of convenience - only when it suited them.)

Jim is technically correct about suggestion and mandate, but Randy understands the tone of the suggestion which lets the recipient of the suggestion know it is, in fact, a mandate.


Technically? If the recipient of the information understands that a mandate is being couched as a suggestion, IT'S STILL A MANDATE. http://elsmar.com/Forums/picture.php?albumid=45&pictureid=634 If we're to believe the person who initiated the thread, talk about mandates, requirements and what one has to do at the behest of a customer are :topic:

Technically? If the recipient of the information understands that a mandate is being couched as a suggestion, IT'S STILL A MANDATE. http://elsmar.com/Forums/picture.php?albumid=45&pictureid=634 If we're to believe the person who initiated the thread, talk about mandates, requirements and what one has to do at the behest of a customer are :topic:OK! When you are the auditor who only looks at the written record, do you know whether it was a mandate by a buyer or just a weak will by a supplier? We can try to limit the discussion to the text by the OP, but in the real world, context plays a much bigger part. Most of us bring all the baggage of our experience to the discussion. In one sense, it seems we are creating a generalization from a specific isolated experience, but when the cumulative experiences of many ring the same theme, doesn't it then become the generalization?

OK! When you are the auditor who only looks at the written record, do you know whether it was a mandate by a buyer or just a weak will by a supplier?
What difference should it make to an auditor?

We can try to limit the discussion to the text by the OP, but in the real world, context plays a much bigger part. Most of us bring all the baggage of our experience to the discussion. In one sense, it seems we are creating a generalization from a specific isolated experience, but when the cumulative experiences of many ring the same theme, doesn't it then become the generalization?
I've have no idea what point you're trying to make. Threads sometimes meander on their own, and that's often a good thing. The question is, "Should customers influence a supplier's registrar selection?" Not "Should customers demand that their suppliers use a certain registrar?"

What difference should it make to an auditor? Oops - I was thinking investment banker/forensic accountant (that kind of auditor) - trying to sort out WHY some supplier is accepting nonprofitable customers or using certain sub-suppliers or following a suspicious trend that every member of his supply chain has exactly the same registrar - coincidence, stupidity, or fraud and conspiracy?


I've have no idea what point you're trying to make. Threads sometimes meander on their own, and that's often a good thing. The question is, "Should customers influence a supplier's registrar selection?" Not "Should customers demand that their suppliers use a certain registrar?"the question goes to the point that we all bring our own experiences to the table in defining "influence." If a customer says, "All our currently active supply chain members use XYZ registrar." Does the supplier interpret that as a suggestion? a plain factoid with zero inference? a vague attempt to influence? or a not-so-subtle statement that should be interpreted as: "nobody gets into our supply chain UNLESS he uses XYZ!"

What is the reason for influencing supplier's registrar?
What is the return necessary from influencing?
What are the risks involved in influencing?
What are the ways necessary to influence?

The question is, "Should customers influence a supplier's registrar selection?" Not "Should customers demand that their suppliers use a certain registrar?"

Yes, that ws the question posed by Sidney. I interpret his question as meaning something like 'should what customers want or think have any influence at all on the decision that a particular organisation makes to select their registrar/CB'. On that basis, I think why would it not?

Here in Australia, one certifier has very wide brand recognition, and is particularly well known in certain specific fields. For a number of companies in those fields who decide to get certified, they are often strongly influenced by what their customers will think. Or rather, what they believe that their customers -actual as well as potential- will think. And they think those customers will 'expect' that certification will involve the Wide Brand Recognition firm (rather than a lesser known one).

There's no insistence, no force and no direct pressure; the decision is made by the companies. But yes, they very much consider what they think their customers' perception will be.

Right or wrong? I think it's their choice. But why would or should they completely ignore what their customers might think?

Hi, all

I think a supplier should set the questions:
1) what is the weight of our selected CB in the supplier selection criteria of this customer?
2) if we select the same CB, will this customer skip a second party audit?

If the relation with the customer is good, why not stop guessing and actually ask these questions directly and openly from the customer?

Personally I would not set any other requirement except the CB to be IAF accredited for the relevant area.

Regards
Raimo

2) if we select the same CB, will this customer skip a second party audit?

This is a good point. If a customer has enough confidence in a particular CB that they're willing to recommend it, does their confidence extend to being willing to forgo their own audits of the supplier?

If the relation with the customer is good, why not stop guessing and actually ask these questions directly and openly from the customer?
This kind of communication is always a good thing, imo. :agree1:

This is a good point. If a customer has enough confidence in a particular CB that they're willing to recommend it, does their confidence extend to being willing to forgo their own audits of the supplier? We should remember that it costs money to the customer for them to perform supplier audits, as well.

In the Aviation, Space & Defense sector, more and more, customer auditors (2nd party) are moving away from doing redundant QMS audits and, when necessary, assessing the supplier for process and product conformity issues.

Attached you will find a document with two slides from the latest IAQG Executive brief document. It depicts the average net savings to customers AND suppliers, when 2nd party audits are reduced due to the ICOP certification Scheme

During the last couple of days, we have had a number of posts concerning people having quality problems with their suppliers. Clearly, a good percentage of ISO 9001 certified suppliers are under performing. Why are CB's maintaining certification of substandard systems?

We should remember that it costs money to the customer for them to perform supplier audits, as well.

In the Aviation, Space & Defense sector, more and more, customer auditors (2nd party) are moving away from doing redundant QMS audits and, when necessary, assessing the supplier for process and product conformity issues.

Attached you will find a document with two slides from the latest IAQG Executive brief document. It depicts the average net savings to customers AND suppliers, when 2nd party audits are reduced due to the ICOP certification Scheme

During the last couple of days, we have had a number of posts concerning people having quality problems with their suppliers. Clearly, a good percentage of ISO 9001 certified suppliers are under performing. Why are CB's maintaining certification o substandard systems?

The stock answer is that the CB audit (or any audit, for that matter) is just a "snapshot" of a brief period of time, thus the audits shouldn't be expected to catch everything. That's true as far as it goes, but there are gross deficiencies that aren't being captured, and far too many of them. We should also remember that one of the selling points for third-party audits was relief of the burden of customer audits. Speaking from my own experience, it hasn't happened, and customer audits are more likely to find issues, which is why customers feel the need to keep auditing.

The stock answer is that the CB audit (or any audit, for that matter) is just a "snapshot" of a brief period of time, thus the audits shouldn't be expected to catch everything. While audits will always be constrained by the objective evidence available, at the time of the audit, if adequately planned for, the "proper" evidence should be available, such as indicators of customer (dis)satisfaction, process yields, product conformity and continual improvement. Unless the audited organization lies, cheats or commits fraud, an audit can reach meaningful conclusions about the system. Further, CB's should not be performing isolated, disconnected "snapshot in time" audits, but, instead, should be managing an audit program, with the preceding audits providing input and being a lesson learned in preparation for the subsequent ones. That's true as far as it goes, but there are gross deficiencies that aren't being captured I agree. and far too many of them.Now we are speculating. While it might be true (or not), we don't have access to any data that would prove the "excessiveness" of gross deficiencies going "unreported". It might be your (and many other's) perception, but there is no way to prove it. Just the fact that ISO 9001 certification has reached close to 1 million organizations around the World, in two decades, or so, it provides some indication that some people is seeing benefits from it. Otherwise, it would have vanished, by now. We should also remember that one of the selling points for third-party audits was relief of the burden of customer audits. Speaking from my own experience, it hasn't happened In some sectors, it has happened. and customer audits are more likely to find issues, which is why customers feel the need to keep auditing.Customer auditors are also more prone to micromanage the suppliers, whom, for the most part, can not "fire" the customer auditors, even when they grossly overstep their role.

It seems to me that the poll results and majority of opinions expressed against customers influencing a supplier's selection process for a registrar has a lot to do with the fact that most people participating in this discussion find themselves in the receiving end of the mandate, i.e., being told by customers that they need to be certified.

For those who are in a position of mandating certification to their suppliers, the reaction is the opposite. Because, if they are going to rely on a certificate as a component of their supplier's capability, the certificate itself must be issued by a trustworthy source.

So, where you stand (customer or supplier) most definitely affects how you would answer this question.