Just saw this logo on a UK website.

Never heard of them, anyone else - also didnt know there was an outfit out there offering accreditation other than UKAS ?

Here is their site http://www.ascb.co.uk/index.html

I cannot see where they have the basis for their accreditation

That is a great article! He has articulated what I have thought all along. In the thread where we talk about Dr. Eicher's comments it was mentioned that there was no objective evidence provided. Just whispers and innuendo from the Quality Geeks with a vested interest to keep the deck stacked. I like this statement:

"I believe that maintenance of standards is not the real subject here. Money is behind this issue and the protection of the market that the established certification profession is trying to cling onto."

There are many more and I recommend that anyone who doesn't swallow the ISO ideology hook, line and sinker, please read it. Sure it's just another opinion but it's refreshing to see someone take on the "establishment" of fuddy duddies! :vfunny:
:ko: :smokin:

M Greenaway said:

Just saw this logo on a UK website.

Never heard of them, anyone else - also didnt know there was an outfit out there offering accreditation other than UKAS ?

MGreen, believe it or not UKAS is not the only out there you have UKAS, RAB, DAR, ZLG, JAB, there is a bunch of Accreditation bodies.

Yes that was a very interesting article Jim.

ISOGUY - yes I am well aware of that fact, but in the UK I thought only UKAS existed - we all live and learn, even me, and maybe Jim.

Jim Wade said:

The 'official' UK channels are very sniffy about the existence of the ACCREDITATION SERVICE FOR CERTIFYING BODIES (EUROPE) LIMITED.

You can read some opinions from the man who runs the body at http://www.bin.co.uk/ascbedir

rgds

Jim

Wow! This is worth a read by everyone. It is not too long, but it says a great deal.

Jim Wade said:

But I don't understand why you feel that ISO would have a vested interest in dämning the certification/accreditation process?

Surely one would expect them to take the opposite view and to close ranks with the rest of the Quality Geeks?

:confused:

rgds Jim

Jim,

Here is where I'm coming from on this. This was an earlier post in response to reading all the responses in your article on your website. Sorry for repeating it.



Energy said:

Jim, (partial quote)

I signed up at your site and downloaded Seddon's six pages. I also passed them on to our Senior Managers. By Monday AM, they will have been filed into their circular file, for sure.

Any way, I did like this because I wanted to see the proof of such strong statements. The 'truth" as you call it. I copied sections from the article on your home page,

"UKAS is aware that there is international concern about malpractice in the ISO 9000 certification field. We have participated in talks in ISO that led to the message given out by the Secretary General. We take very seriously allegations that there is malpractice, and we invite anyone with specific information relating to a UKAS accredited certification bodies to provide it to us for our action.

"It would appear, however, that there is cause for concern. There is enough smoke to suggest fire. In particular we hear of allegations that certification bodies mix certification with the provision of consultancy in such a way as to undermine the independence of the certification process. Accreditation bodies can only act against this on the basis of evidence, and this is most likely to arise from complaints. The audit process alone is unlikely to reveal evidence about deliberate malpractice. So we appeal to anyone with information that might substantiate these allegations to complain, with the evidence, to the body that accredits the certification body in question, whether this be UKAS or one of our sister organisations in other countries. The activities of unaccredited certification bodies are of course more difficult to control."

Finally, this: "It would be a tragedy if the valuable technical work being undertaken were to be undermined by innuendo . On the other hand, were there to be substance behind such innuendo , the certification industry would need to put its house in order speedily. UKAS would use all its available powers to bring this about. So, if you have evidence of malpractice, let us know so we an act".

Where do these allegations come from? Disgruntled employees? Frustrated Auditors? Word of mouth or see it posted somewhere? Makes for good copy. This organization above pleads three times for evidence. Can some of the complaints come from Companies that are certified and just don't believe that their competitor(s) can be registered above board? Before I join a bandwagon, I'm always skeptical of unsubstantiated charges no matter who makes them, I would like to see the evidence to warrant words from the mourned late Dr. Eicher like "malpractice", "dishonesty", "charlatans" and "lack of integrity" before I climb on board or even pass it along. I suspect that it isn't there, so they take "let's caution the Registrars" approach. Innuendos can be made fact if they are told often enough. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Some of us need more than others. I just haven't figured out what the gain is to repeat unsubstantiated allegations and attempt to discredit, with a very broad brush stroke, companies and registrars who may very well be able to contradict those immortal words as not applying to them.

So, I don't really blame ISO. I blame those arrogant Quality geeks that engage in whispers and innuendos to condemn others without any proof. Kind of like the Grand Inquisition where the crusty old devils surrounded the leader and whispered into his ear, "Off with his head" for whatever reason. The leader didn't know. And neither does ISO. The vested interest, IMHO, are the accusing, malicious, greedy Quality Professionals who stand to make a buck cleaning up the mess they started in the first place. No, I wouldn't close ranks with these "Charlatans". I would distance myself from those "dishonest" calculating types.

Ah, the Search fuction in the Cove is a wonderful thing. I knew I had addressed my emotions on this before and just could not locate it. So I typed in, guess what? INNUENDOS :vfunny: :ko: :smokin

Jim Wade said:

In your opinion, I think, all this comes from falsehoods and innuendo spread by "geeks". But isn't it just possible that ISO executives might be less stupid than you seem to think? Isn't it possible that, rather than recycling "geek" stories, they are in a position to know the facts rather better than you or I?

Aren't you even just a little bit intrigued by the question "why would ISO take this stand if it didn't think something was badly wrong?"

I challenge you to answer that question - or is it just easier and more fun to blame it all on "geeks"?

rgds Jim

Jim,

You still don't hear me.:bonk: Have the geeks produced evidence? What's so hard about that? Who knows why ISO has taken the stand that they have? No evidence they are willing to share, even though they have been asked to produce it? Is this like a Grand Jury? I don't know, do you? Are you just willing to follow the drum beat without a shred of evidence. Do you mouth their opinions to impress others? You aren't one of their advisers, are you? Remember the Pied Piper thread? Too many deals go on in dark, smoke filled rooms by connivers and manipulators in key positions for me to accept statements that are just thrown out there without attempting to justify them. "Hey, I said it so it's true. Don't believe me? Look at my credentials." Bullcocky. Show me. Here's your challenge. Give us some evidence...names..incidents...to bolster the ISO argument. Challenge this! :biglaugh: :ko: :smokin:

Jim

How will this realiance on third party certification ever be shifted ?

Personally I think the stance of the bodies you mention in criticising ISO9001 certification mal-practice is in a hope to distance themselves from it, and be seen as the bastions of good practice - for marketing advantage. That is what I believe they hope to gain.

Clearly there is a lot of opinion on the merits or otherwise of certification, which undoubtedly falls on the ears of these guys. They either ignore it, or stand up and declare 'hey its nothing to do with us, but we know it goes on, so come to us for our more honourable service/stadard/model/ethos/whatever'.

If there is corruption or collusion, and people are effectively buying their certification without implementing a QMS then who cares - they are only fooling themselves. Clearly if their customers choose to buy from them, based on dodgy certification alone, then they deserve what they get, and if they are happy with what they get then one might argue the company has an effective QMS !

Chill Jim.:thedeal:

Jim Wade said:

Me, I believe them. Why? For three reasons ..

1 I see them as decent professionals exposing a corrupt system, not as geeks.

2 I can't for the life of me see why they would lie about this. Can you?

3 What they say accords with what I have observed personally in many cases.

rgds Jim

1. Geeks is a term of endearment I use for bubbleheaded professionals with their heads in the clouds and out of touch with reality. Don't take it personally. A corrupt system? Nice weather we're having.

2. Sure. People lie to make money. All they need is a few gullible parrots to spread the word and "presto" we have a scandal.

3. Oh really? What, they didn't measure up to your sterling interpretation of the standard? I don't buy it.

One of the things I've been thinking about is why there is a lack of evidence willing to be shared with the poor slobs making a living at this corrupt system. Imagine the litigation resulting from accusations, from the almighty, of collusion between Registrars and Clients. Imagine the court room sharks trying to interpret the standard and apply it to the accused as proof of wrong doing and the defense applying the standard as proof of innocence? We can't agree here, with hundreds of members. A jury, forget it.

Nah, it's easier to sling accusations and have them mouthed by those who have the most to gain by fostering the view that there are many undeserving companies out there who obtained their certification through less than honest dealings with registrars. Makes them feel superior. You know, above the fray? Kind of like, you know, lofty?
I promise to refrain from using the word Geek, as it seems to struck a nerve. I'll stay with Bubblehead. :rolleyes: :smokin:

M Greenaway said:

Clearly if their customers choose to buy from them, based on dodgy certification alone, then they deserve what they get, and if they are happy with what they get then one might argue the company has an effective QMS !

Chill Jim.:thedeal:

Well said, M. "One might argue the Company has an effective QMS." The Customer is the real Judge and Jury. Not those G..........no, I promised. :vfunny: :smokin:

Jim Wade said:



So, according to you energy, the International Organization for Standardization, amongst others, is lying about malpractice in the ISO 900x certification process in order to make money?

Aha, that's interesting.

But I don't see how it works. Can you explain how they make money from these alleged lies.

rgds Jim

Jim,

Actually, you were the one who first used the word lie. I would have have preferred the word "mislead". To lie, you must have the proof to the contrary and continue to preach the opposite view. Mislead, in my limited opinion, is a devious attempt to paint the picture you want without having the necessary proof to positively say so. You know, Innuendo?:vfunny:

As for money. I envision kind of an ISO Police Force or some other Governing Organization made up of Professional Bubble.....No, I mean Esteemed Leaders in the Quality field who will guarantee, for a slight stipend, that you have attained certification without resorting to shady deals between you and your Registrar. Like a Seal of Approval to paste on the corner of your certificate.:vfunny: Then you can feel doubly sure that you will not come under suspicion from those who are convinced that you had to cut some deal to attain it. But, that would depend on the deal you make with the Police. Wouldn't it? It's a never-ending vicious cycle. There's no pleasing everybody. Particularly those who sit on high with an eye on making a profit. Yes, you can call me skeptical. Proud of it. :rolleyes:
Hey, enjoy Father's Day!:bigwave: :smokin:

Jim

Neither ISO or the IQA unveiled these malpractice allegations, they have been around for years, and been made from inside the quality profession, and from other professional bodies and institutes outside of it.

Now ISO has to do something about it or its most successful standard in terms of sales will rapidly diminish, or even worse (to them) no longer exist. They have had to come out and make a stance on it in order to protect their precious standard, and i would like to think also the integrity of quality management in general.

I also think that the IQA has similar concerns, although theirs may be far less commercial, and totally with regard to the integrity of the quality profession, as that is what they are here to promote.

I dont think either of these institutions are making anything up, as energy seems to suggest, also they may not have any real evidence. But what they do have is a certain feedback from business suggesting these things, and they have to react to protect theirs and our interests.

I dont think it is a blight on the whole third party certification industry, I do believe that the majority are trying to do the 'right thing' - but maybe I am too trusting and naive :lick:

With consideration to all of this, think about the 'poor slobs' who have had to go through QS-9000 and now TS 16949.

I have maintained for years that this stuff is all about money (especially QS) and I still believe it. I've been in so many companies that are QS or ISO registered where it is such a total joke that it never ceases to amaze me.

As far as the 'Pros' - the quality 'profession' in the US is saddled with the ASQ as a leader in focusing on money.

M Greenaway said:

Jim

Neither ISO or the IQA unveiled these malpractice allegations, they have been around for years, and been made from inside the quality profession, and from other professional bodies and institutes outside of it.

Now ISO has to do something about it or its most successful standard in terms of sales will rapidly diminish, or even worse (to them) no longer exist. They have had to come out and make a stance on it in order to protect their precious standard, and i would like to think also the integrity of quality management in general.

I also think that the IQA has similar concerns, although theirs may be far less commercial, and totally with regard to the integrity of the quality profession, as that is what they are here to promote.

I dont think either of these institutions are making anything up, as energy seems to suggest, also they may not have any real evidence. But what they do have is a certain feedback from business suggesting these things, and they have to react to protect theirs and our interests.

I dont think it is a blight on the whole third party certification industry, I do believe that the majority are trying to do the 'right thing' - but maybe I am too trusting and naive :lick:

Nice way of putting it, M. Never said they were making it up. Suggesting that they are being lead by the nose by those who have a vested interest in promoting this air of distrust.

Marc, Absolutely. When I get my e-mail messages from ASQ, it's all about buying something. Products, training, seminars, etc..Very little substance regarding the subjects we discuss here. It is all about money, but you guys say it a whole lot nicer.
Well, the kids are coming for Father's Day and my son's birthday, so I will partake of the refreshments and pray for some Sunshine. Of course, like the moth to the flame, I'll be checking in this evening, providing I can see still see:p Enjoy.:bigwave:
:ko: :smokin: