Here is a fragment of speech by Dr. Lawrence D. Eicher ( ISO Secretary-General) at the opening of the 17th meeting of ISO/CASCO. Nota bene, it was published on ISO official site.

The ISO Secretary-General said that the conformity assessment community was facing a serious challenge caused by a certain number of certification bodies which acted without integrity.

Although ISO itself does not audit companies and does not issue ISO 9000 certificates nor control the certification bodies that do so independently of ISO, these bodies base their business on ISO standards and guides. "Therefore, when certification bodies act without integrity, many people believe that it is ISO's fault," Dr. Eicher said.

"We regularly receive complaints about certificates being awarded undeservedly to companies who have not been properly audited, or about certification bodies who offer to write the quality manual for the company and then sell them a certificate, or about others who claim to have been approved by ISO. No one at ISO has ever approved such certification bodies."

Dr. Eicher said that ISO was concerned about such practices and that all conformity assessment professionals needed to be concerned too if they wanted to avoid being seen as "charlatans", concluding: "You need to police yourselves."

Don't you think it is a kind of provocation or may be it is an act of ISO standards promotion? In all cases it is a very strange speech.

I've read this post a couple of times now & what keeps comming to mind is:

The ISO body - writes the words - sets the standards - defines the issues that they are comfortable with - - yet turns at least a semi- blind eye to such a wide range of interpretaions that when anyone points out possible problems of what is actually being done -

They ask that certification bodies "Police themselves"

I possibly am thinking way off base here but --

Is this not a form of "we want accountability" as long as that accountability does not fall on us??

ANSI issues standards also, but does not police the users. A company can select an ANSI standard and elect not to apply the the standard in the recommended method yet still claim compliance.

Isn't there a correlation between the ISO issuance of standards and ANSI issuance?

Rick

Jim

I wonder who has mislead who.

Was it ISO for the purposes of popularising the standard ?

Was it the registrars for selling their services ?

Or was it companies marketing departments to sell their goods ?

When you look at the history of the standard and trace it back to its military standard roots it begs the question 'was the standard ever meant to be a standard of excellance ?'.

I would argue that it was not created for this purpose, it was created purely for compliance for contractual reasons so that the customer (MoD) knew (or thought it knew) the systems that their suppliers operated. Obviously the intent was to assure quality, but the award of such a certificate was never based on an assessment of excellance of the product.

Unfortunately one of the above 'suspects' hi-jacked the whole thing and started making outlandish claims about what their ISO9001 certification meant - clearly this has lead to widespread dissappointment.

So who mislead who ? :confused:

Jim

So is it an inevitable conclusion that QMS certification will ultimately one day die ?

Or are there too many vested interests in the certification business ?

First, the content of the posts from M Greenway and Jim Wade are excellent. My input here is merely to re-enforce what I have said in previous posts. And, I might add, been called out for my apparent disdain for the Quality profession. Since the advent of Mil Specs, the problem has always been the same. You question the reasons for adhering to a system that never guaranteed the product. It was always about controls. The strict interpretation, by some, and the reverence for, by some, of whatever Quality System was-is the fad of the day, always p-ssed me off. None of the bull*** made the product any better. Continuous (Product)Improvement was always done by Engineers trying to reduce costs, while increasing reliability. Smart companies always looked at streamlining processes to increase profitability while ensuring that their product was the best it could be. Yes, I still sneer at the experts who doggedly defend a System, because (I feel) it is mostly self serving. It's about their making money, not improving the way you do business. You should know how to do that. Use the guidelines, throw out what is of no value to you, utilize those things that are. Being forced to "comply" for the sake of a Certificate is wrong. But, until the powers to be (Customers) realize that they are being had, they will force their Suppliers to "go for it". So, this is how I make my money, too. I don't have to like it, just do it. I have a fondness for the MIL-Q-9858, MIL-I-45208, etc..You were source inspected, maybe had a Resident Gov't Inspector at your facility. No certificate to hang on the wall. No shopping around for Registrars. $$$$$$ Just contracts for more orders, as long as you met the requirements which weren't as subjective as they are today. The product was no better or no worse than what's produced today, in spite of all the "new" fads that have come and gone. JMHO
:ko: :smokin:

Originally posted by M Greenaway

I would argue that it was not created for this purpose, it was created purely for compliance for contractual reasons so that the customer (MoD) knew (or thought it knew) the systems that their suppliers operated. Obviously the intent was to assure quality, but the award of such a certificate was never based on an assessment of excellance of the product.


I agree, Martin. ISO 9001 is the standard used for the assessment of the QMS for certification purposes.

That's all it is for. It is an assessment tool with minimum criteria so that customers know certain business processes are in place to increase the liklihood of getting what they want. Meeting the contract.

The definition of Quality as used in the ISO standards: degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfils requirements. It does not address excellance of product. What is required is that the customer experiences satisfaction that his needs have been met, whether those needs are cost, reliability, or disposability.

energy, I feel your pain. And yes, business is in business to make money and, certfication or no certification, a company will try to do the best business they can. But I feel that certification is the easiest way to demonstrate to your customers that you have these most basic of business processes. Believe it or not, not all companies do!

Trouble is that when these companies get their certificate they herald its arrival with all kinds of pomp and ceremony, and make wild claims that the 'award' of the certificate demonstrates the high quality of their product, or the excellance of their business, when in fact it means no such thing.

Its a bit like throwing a party because your car passed its MOT, and declaring your car to be the greatest in the world.

Would ISO9001 have such popularity though if it were truthfully marketed as 'the basic minimum a company should be doing to offer assurance of the quality of its products - which doesnt actually necessarily mean that their product will meet your requirements'.

Probably not.

I think companies will always look for a badge of excellance to use as a marketing tool. Whether ISO9001 continues to be the main badge looks doubtful, but I am sure something else will come along and all those involved in the ISO9001 business will migrate to whatever else takes its place.

Are we doomed ?

I think as long as certified companies (and registrars) can snooker their customers into believing the certification makes their company somehow superior to those who don't have the paper not much will change. There have been a few big companies that bucked the trend and "self-certified" or did things their own way by picking and choosing from ISO 9000 but they have not started a landslide.

I liken having the ISO certificate to having a college degree. It (the degree) means that at one time you knew enough of the required knowledge and had enough of the required skills to pass the required tests. It certainly does not mean the degreed individual still (at a later date) has all of this knowledge and skill nor does it mean that the person has worked to maintain that knowledge or continue to learn more (continuously improve). Yes, he/she can show continuing education credits or more classes taken, but the bottom line is always performance. College grads forget (use-it-or-lose-it); I couldn't pass many of the tests I once took now!

Whether looking at companies or people, the performance still means much more to me than what piece of paper thay have. I would suspect most companies beleive this too, but they are trapped into looking only for degreed employees and certified vendors out of habit, the desire to "comply" with the norm, and because it is possibly easier than the alternatives.

Mike S.

M Greenaway said:
Trouble is that when these companies get their certificate they herald its arrival with all kinds of pomp and ceremony, and make wild claims that the 'award' of the certificate demonstrates the high quality of their product, or the excellance of their business, when in fact it means no such thing.


We will have the Newspaper Reporters here and a banner that will stretch a city block. It will be in the business section of the Sunday paper for maximum exposure. After all, that is really what it all about, to our Top dogs. Perception. We just did it for LEAN. You would have choked on aroma of bull---- that was fed the reporter.
But, fortunately for all of us, ISO Certification isn't as easy to obtain as the "preachers" of currupt/false registrations would have you believe. No effort, no banner! No implementation, no reporters. No certification. No party. Blame? Oh yea!. :bonk:

:ko: :smokin:

Implementation of ISO and subsequent follow up is a kind of policing the departments. There is a saying in finance " An auditor is a watch dog and not a blood hound"

This is true here too. The QA team is watchdog team and they police the other departments and make reports and send to senior management.

The standard should mandatorily state that the object of ISO implementation is a must for the entire organisation including, administration,finance, security etc

Jim

Interesting to read in this report that the predominant factor still applied by purchasers is the price.

Is it therefore any wonder that there is no perceivable improvment in quality ? You get what you pay for really.

I wonder if these companies insist on purchasing from an ISO9001 source, I also wonder if their purchasing process is adequate for them to assure receipt of quality product, i.e. are they actually expressing in satisfactory terms exactly what they want.

Just wondering why they lay the blame on the ISO9001 tool - what is it they say about bad workmen............

M Greenaway said:

Just wondering why they lay the blame on the ISO9001 tool - what is it they say about bad workmen............

Exactly, marcus...

Usually a hammer is no good for anything... Unless you happen to use it for it's intended purpose. So we can easily agree that the tool is not being used properly.

Now, then: Why? Presumably because we have not been successful in telling them how to use it... I've frequently heard quality staff people say that marketing is the very toughest area to "get into shape", and that it's completely impossible to turn them around. That may be, but we can learn one thing from them: They know how to sell things, but we certainly don't know how to sell ISO 9000, do we?

I think we generally have a major improvement potential there.

/Claes

Jim

I didnt find the results of this report to be very overwhelming. The percentage stating comments such as 'no improvement', 'no benefit', etc were always in the minority. The vast majority seemed to say some or much improved.

I guess its just how the authors of this report viewed the glass - a third full as opposed to two thirds empty (or vice verca - you get my point ?).

[QUOTE] Jim Wade said:
They say, of course, "it's a bad workman who blames his tools".

I guess, in this case, the writers of the report, having noted that a large percentage of the available workmen were saying such "overwhelmingly critical" things about one of their tools, concluded that there might be something in it.

But, like you, I can only read between the lines here.
____________________
I have not read the report except for the portions in this thread, but for the sake of stirring the pot a bit I'll add a few comments/opinions:

Sometimes when a workman blames his tools, he (or she - hope none of the ladies of the Cove are offended when I use the term "he" -- it is meant androgenously) really DOESN'T have the best tool for the job. If I supplied a tool for my company that a "large percentage of the available workmen were ... overwhelmingly critical about" I'd darn sure have a really close look at the tool and what they were saying about it. Wouldn't you? (Consider the "tool" a piece of test or manufacturing equipment.) Smart quality professionals try to work with the people "on the floor" and really listen to their inputs and try to work with them instead of approaching them as superiors from the ivory tower. The vast majority of the time a compromise that makes everyone happy and is in the best interest of the company can be reached.

However, with ISO, we're dealing with a tool that is often either mandated or those who don't choose to use it exactly as written (and interpreted) are stigmatized. Compromise just doesn't work with ISO if you want the certificate.

Why the stigma? Some people have business to lose if companies move away from ISO; others feel threatened that their certificate will mean less if ISO has less support; others are envious; some may be just plain elitist.

ISO 9001-2000 (and the similar standards) exactly as written can be a great tool -- maybe the best tool -- for some companies. God bless 'em. Wonderful! But I am 100% convinced that it is not the best tool for ALL companies. IMHO if more flexibility were built into ISO it would go over much better. Sometimes one size doesn't fit all. Can all the detractors be wrong?

Again, I think we tend to forget, many great things were designed and built, and many great companies with great quality have flourished, before any of the ISO 9000 series came about. ISO 9000 is not a prerequisite for quality and success!!!! Indeed, there are many good ways to skin a cat, you just wouldn't believe that by listening to some folks who are so blindly pro-ISO that they probably have ISO9000 compliant flower gardens at their home.

As always -- JMHO.

Mike S.

Came across this the other day:
ISO and IAF to pool information on ISO 9000 complaints


ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and the IAF (International Accreditation Forum) are to share information on complaints they receive relating to ISO 9000 certification and on actions taken to deal with them.

The move was announced in a joint communiqué on 23 April 2002 by the ISO Committee on conformity assessment (ISO/CASCO), the IAF, which is a grouping of national accreditation bodies that have been established in a number of countries to verify the competence of organizations whose business activity - known as "conformity assessment" - is to evaluate other organizations, products, services, systems, processes or materials against standards, regulations or other specifications, and the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC), which verifies the competence of testing and calibration laboratories.

Pooling information on complaints relating to certification of conformity to ISO 9000 quality management standards was proposed by ISO's late Secretary-General, Dr. Lawrence D. Eicher, who in November 2001 had appealed for action by the conformity assessment community to tackle malpractice by unscrupulous operators.

His proposal for the exchange of information and cooperation in dealing with complaints was welcomed by the IAF Chairman, Dr. Takashi Ohtsubo, when he visited ISO Central Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland, in February 2002 to emphasize his organization's support for the ISO Secretary-General's call to action.

The ISO/CASCO-IAF-ILAC communiqué was issued by the joint working group (JWG) set up in December 2000 to protect the image and integrity of conformity assessment. The group announced in its communiqué that in its efforts to protect the customers and users of conformity assessment services from unethical or inappropriate practices, it had identified three kinds of problem:

malpractice (unethical and dishonest practices) by conformity assessment bodies;
misleading advertising of the status of conformity assessment results, including misuse of marks of conformity;
confusion in the market-place between "certification" and "accreditation".
"ISO, IAF and ILAC share the same goal to help users of conformity assessment services to select conformity assessment bodies which operate ethically and competently, and to eliminate malpractice in conformity assessment," the JWG declared in its communiqué, adding that a number of measures had been decided to deal with the above problems. One was to publicize the existence of complaint handling systems and to encourage dissatisfied customers to use them.

"Accredited conformity assessment bodies must have complaint handling systems, based on relevant ISO/IEC Guides and Standards," the JWG stated. "Customers of conformity assessment services dissatisfied with the service they receive are encouraged to lodge their complaints with the relevant conformity assessment bodies. When accreditation bodies have proof that an accredited conformity assessment body has behaved inappropriately, they will take the necessary action, including the suspension or withdrawal of accreditation, according to their documented complaint handling procedures.

"IAF and ILAC together with their members and ISO have procedures in place to receive complaints about the practices of accreditation bodies and accredited conformity assessment bodies, to investigate these complaints (via the relevant accreditation body where the complaint is against an accredited conformity assessment body) and advise on the appropriate action to be taken."

The JWG said that further announcements of measures decided will be made as they are implemented.

Note to editors
"Certification" is when a conformity assessment provider gives written assurance in the form of a certificate that a product, service, system, process or material conforms to specific requirements. The most well known examples are the certification of quality management systems and environmental management systems as conforming, respectively, to ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 standards. Certification is known in some countries as "registration". The providers of these services are known as "certification bodies", "registration bodies" or "registrars".


"Accreditation" is the procedure by which an authoritative body gives formal recognition that a body or person is competent to carry out specific tasks. In the ISO 9000 or ISO 14000 context, it relates to the work of the accreditation bodies that have been set up in a number of countries to evaluate the competence of certification bodies. An accreditation body will accredit - approve - a conformity assessment body as competent to carry out ISO 9000 or ISO 14000 certification in specific business sectors. Accreditation is also carried out of testing laboratories, inspection bodies and product certification bodies.


It should be noted that ISO itself does not carry out either accreditation or certification; it does not issue either ISO 9000 or ISO 14000 certificates and does not control the activities of accreditation or certification bodies. However, through ISO/CASCO, it develops voluntary ISO/IEC Guides and Standards that encourage best practice and consistency in accreditation and certification.