We recieved our 9001:2000 certificate yesterday. It was a long
2 1/2 days.

I would like to say thank you to all the forum members for the information available here. I have been a browser for a little while and feel fortunate to have this knowledge base.

We have been registered since 1995 and have been with the current owner since 1997. There's a lot of lip service with little support and NO congratulations on a job well done.

Thanks again to all. :bigwave:

Laureen,

Congrats on a job well done.

Now that youv'e accomplished your task, please join in and share your experiences and knowledge with the rest of the group!

Welcome!!!!!:bigwave: :bigwave: :bigwave:

CarolX

Good Job Lauren,
Now the fun starts. We received our "Recomendation for Registration" yesterday. I just don't know how to act, it must be I'm getting older or something, I didn't even get in an argument with the auditor this time!
Well, now its time to prove the system will function properly. :bigwave:

Randy Stewart said:

I'm getting older or something, I didn't even get in an argument with the auditor this time!


Randy,

Now that's just NOT right....LOL!!!!!

Congrats to you, too!!!!

CarolX

Congratulations to both of you... and keep posting.

:agree: :bigwave:

/Claes

Congratulations to you both.

We are 18 days and counting from certification audit...I love hearing people say they made it, it gives me hope that I will survive yet another initial certification audit. I don't think it is any less scary than the first time I did this. Of course, I'd feel a lot better if someone wouldn't have turned in a completed CAR with the investigation consisting of only "OK" today. sheesh, where was this guy when we did our root cause analysis training? Mabe the electronic tagging mentioned in another thread is called for here?

Have a good one!:bigwave:

Overall it was a good experience, really. I followed the auditor around at the Corporate Office location but didn't travel with the other auditor to our other facilities. I stayed in the background during the interview sessions and I have to tell you, I was impressed. Most of the interviewees didn't know it was an audit because they didn't see me. They thought the auditor was a customer and were well into the session until they would either notice me or the title "Audit" on the auditors clip board!!! They were more relaxed (this was our 10th surveillance) and were answering questions about "THEIR PROCESS"! I can't emphasize this enough. Do the process thing!!!!!!!!
My department provided guides for the other auditor and it was viewed the same way by our employees. It's like an audit never happened! It's a beautiful thing, it was over before they knew it.
We took 4 minors but received 9 atta boys and the minors were just that very minors. As an example, we had approximately 120 fixture details ready to ship, customer requirements state that each detail must be labeled with Part Number, EC level, etc. 1 out of the 120 was missing the tag!!! Go figure, he checked 3 out of 120 and 1 was messed up.
Yesterday I had at least 4 people come up and ask when the audit was. "I thought our audit started on Tuesday", or "I thought you said he was coming out on the floor". I still can't believe it.

SteelMaiden said:
---X---
Mabe the electronic tagging mentioned in another thread is called for here?
---X---


Tagging? Well, i don't really think so, but a light to moderate electric shock has been known to work wonders for the old memory sometimes.... -> zzZZzzap! :eek:

You know: Pavlovs dog...

/Claes

Congrats, please share your N/C. It will help.

BTW Randy, you must have done well if all they could pick on was tagging. In a lead auditor class they said if you want find something look at tagging. I am surprised they put a N/C to it unless they saw some unidentified in other areas. Does this present a clear and present danger to customer satisifaction?

Lauren,

Hats off to you!!! We all here know how difficult the task is and will be.

Al...:bigwave:

Does this present a clear and present danger to customer satisifaction?
It is a customer requirement for all details to be identified. We reference the Statement of Work as how the customer requirements are transmitted throughout the facility. When you are talking about a Master Body Gage (MBG) or Ornamentation you can have upwards of 400 different details that make up the whole gage, so it is very important. We review these gages in our "White Room" to verify fit and function. Then the gage is broken down for shipment. The different details also allow for changes without having to redo a complete gage. For a MBG, required anywhere between 36 and 28 months before job 1, it fits over the entire outside of a vehicle. Ornamentation gages check interiors, no door interferience, gear shift position, ergonomics of the passenger compartment, etc.

Here are the other minors:
Our audit procedure requires that an audit summary be written for presentation to Executive Management. I did not do one for our business planning process, I referenced our semi annual business briefing to the company. I didn't follow the procedure.

Our Contract Review procedure requires that a RFQ data sheet be initiated by the Estimator, Dept. Manager, or Program Manger upon quote notification by the customer. 2 sampled job files had notes indicating that packages were submitted without RFQ data sheets being completed (feasibility record) prior to quote.
These jobs were our typical business and the Prg Mgr bypassed the feasibility review.

Our procedure for Manufacturing Equipment Maintenance requires maintenance technicians to perform planned maintenance tasks and record work performed, time used, and parts consumed. During the audit of the Preventive Maintenance activities at the Warren site, evidence of compliance with this requirement could not be found for maintenance tasks performed on the Robotic Equipment for the maintenance performed in Sept. '02.

In all 4 of these it was not the system or process that failed but our inability to follow our documented processes (myself included). There were no Standard Non-Compliances noted as you can see. Our personnel are not required to know if their processes comply, that is my departments responsiblity, they are required to follow the process. For if they follow the process we will be in compliance.
Make any sense???
:smokin: :thedeal:

Our RB was certified for TS/9K2K last year, just for background. While talking with our auditors it was interesting to note that during their observed audits that if they used a checklist to audit they failed!!!! They were instructed to use the checklist back in their Motel Rooms to ensure they looked at everything but not to use them during the actual audit. It takes away from the Process Approach.
I am now officially scared to death. I actually agree with the concept. Between that and not arguing during the audit I think I may need a little time out on the lake. Like, say a month!!!!!:bonk:

A quick note to share some good news!!!!

We just completed our certification audit. We received two minor nonconformances (one of them is something we are near completion on anyway) and will be recommended for registration once we submit the our action plans. Thank you everyone for all of your assistance!

Good news here too!

We finished our transition to IOS 9K2K today with no additional nonconformances, so that's just "2" for the whole transition. Thanks to the help we have received here. Thanks all!

Congratulations, Russ & Steel... :agree:

I've said it before, but I can say it again: Just like you two, I consider the help I recieved from the Cove dwellers abolutley priceless... This is an awesome network.

/Claes

To all that have been succesful in their registratiin to whichever standard, the next audit will be harder, don't let your guns down!!!!!

Al....

For the last few weeks I have been seeing posts from those of you who have managed to update to 9k2k. Well today it's my turn and it feels great! No N/Cs, no comments, nothing!! I know it is just one stage in an ongoing process, but for now it is time for a few beers.
Thanks to all who have given to this fantastic resource - so many have been a help. Good luck to all those still working on it.
John

Congratulations John, :agree:

And hey, you have got the right idea: It is allowed to gloat a bit when you have done a good job... Then it's back to the trenches again of course, but one must also take the time enjoy an achievement.

/Claes

First of all, I want to say that this is the best site on the Net for sharing ideas and commentary on Quality, and I want to thank everyone for their insights. Secondly, we passed our ISO 9000:2000 certification audit 2 weeks ago. Before you begin sending your accolaids, I must say that we as an organization were quite surprised by several things:
1. The auditor audited by ISO element not by process. When I asked about this, they said that "we'll audit by process during the next surveilence audit." Hmmm.
2. There was no auditing done for the "evaluation of training effectiveness", which I felt was one of the more significant changes to the standard. When I asked about this, they said that "we'll audit by process during the next surveilence audit." Hmmm.
3. When it came to auditing elements in manufacturing, since they knew our company from previous visits, I asked them where they would like to audit, they said "wherever you'd like to take us."
4. There was no follow-up on the nonconformances identified in the last ISO 9000:1994 audit.

The primary objectives of the audit seemed to be on seeing upper management commitment to the quality system and finding quality objectives established at the different departments. While I don't have a problem with looking for these because of their importance, we had an overall feeling that the auditors were trying not to find a nonconformance. In talking with others who have achieved ISO 9000:2000 certification, they had similar feelings that their auditors weren't trying very hard to find a nonconformance.

Given these data points, I'm wondering if the registrars have instructed the auditors to only look for blatent gaps in an organization's quality system to help minimize any potential man-hours required for administration and follow-up between now and December 13. Then once they get everyone certified to the new standard, they become more stringent during the surveilence audits.

Just a thought.

WOW, I want to know who your Registrar is and where do we sign up! Sounds like somebody dropped the ball on that one. All the hard work you have done will pay off no matter how laxed your audit was. I dont believe that auditors have been instructed to look blatently at anything. The auditor was either very confident in what they saw and didnt converse it well enough to you or they were just having a lazy day, IMHO. Don't worry they will be back... congrats anyways!
Paula

We had the same auditor for our re-cert that has done some of our surveillance audits. He was well aware of our system and had seen some of the items we were working on even before the re-cert audit. He wanted us to work together to get the most out of the audit. :bigwave:

First of all, I want to say that this is the best site on the Net for sharing ideas and commentary on Quality, and I want to thank everyone for their insights. Secondly, we passed our ISO 9000:2000 certification audit 2 weeks ago. Before you begin sending your accolaids, I must say that we as an organization were quite surprised by several things:
1. The auditor audited by ISO element not by process. When I asked about this, they said that "we'll audit by process during the next surveilence audit." Hmmm.
2. There was no auditing done for the "evaluation of training effectiveness", which I felt was one of the more significant changes to the standard. When I asked about this, they said that "we'll audit by process during the next surveilence audit." Hmmm.
3. When it came to auditing elements in manufacturing, since they knew our company from previous visits, I asked them where they would like to audit, they said "wherever you'd like to take us."
4. There was no follow-up on the nonconformances identified in the last ISO 9000:1994 audit.

The primary objectives of the audit seemed to be on seeing upper management commitment to the quality system and finding quality objectives established at the different departments. While I don't have a problem with looking for these because of their importance, we had an overall feeling that the auditors were trying not to find a nonconformance. In talking with others who have achieved ISO 9000:2000 certification, they had similar feelings that their auditors weren't trying very hard to find a nonconformance.

Given these data points, I'm wondering if the registrars have instructed the auditors to only look for blatent gaps in an organization's quality system to help minimize any potential man-hours required for administration and follow-up between now and December 13. Then once they get everyone certified to the new standard, they become more stringent during the surveilence audits.

Just a thought.

Not sure who your Registrar is, but I would imagine that looking for Commitment from Upper Management will take much longer than it has in the past. I know from the audits I have done for 9K2K that I have spent a great deal of time in this area. However, with that being said the rest of the system is still important as well. You were wondering if they have possibly been instructed to not look for n/c's. When I do audits it is not my job to look for n/c's it is to looks for conformance (objective evidence). Do you feel you had n/c's that should have been written? Remember audits are a sample of your system.

You stated they didn't look at the way you evalute the eff. of training, I agree with you that this was a significant change and have dinged quite a few companies with a n/c for not doing this. I would be interested in seeing how you do this if you would care to share.

After experiencing the longest audit of my life, we were given a conditional approval for ISO 9001:2000 yesterday afternoon.

July 1, our Sales force in Tampa, Florida was audited.
July 3, our Sales force in Whitby, Ontario was audited.
July 8 and 9, our manufacturing processes here in Cambridge, Ontario were audited.

4.5 man-days resulted in 3 minor findings and 5 Opportunities for Improvement. Our findings should be easily addressed within 30 days...in fact, Sales in Tampa wrapped theirs up yesterday and our Whitby Sales force are approximately 50% through addressing their finding.

Long road to get here...full of arguments, discussions, training, communication, hair pulling, name calling, and near blows at times...but in the end, we succeeded.

To add to the mix, today my boss formally decided to return to her Accounting roots and has accepted a position back in our Finance Department. The Business Management System and role of Management Representative is now mine. Wow....who ever would have thought that *I* would have responsibilities? :vfunny:

Excuse me now, but I'm hitting the bar. This audit and promotion is worthy of a drink or two in celebration! ;)

Not sure who your Registrar is, but I would imagine that looking for Commitment from Upper Management will take much longer than it has in the past. I know from the audits I have done for 9K2K that I have spent a great deal of time in this area. However, with that being said the rest of the system is still important as well. You were wondering if they have possibly been instructed to not look for n/c's. When I do audits it is not my job to look for n/c's it is to looks for conformance (objective evidence). Do you feel you had n/c's that should have been written? Remember audits are a sample of your system.

You stated they didn't look at the way you evalute the eff. of training, I agree with you that this was a significant change and have dinged quite a few companies with a n/c for not doing this. I would be interested in seeing how you do this if you would care to share.

ISO Guy-

We didn't feel as though we had any n/c's to be written, because we had done a thorough job in preparing for the new standard. It's almost like when we studied for a tough exam in college and then the professor gave a whimpy exam. Yes, we are all the better for it, but in some ways we almost felt cheated because we didn't get a chance to show our stuff.

We already had many of the key ISO 9000:2000 changes already in place, so we put the most effort into our evaluation of training effectiveness. We implemented a system of either knowledge or performance evaluations for all positions from Order Receipt to Receiving to Purchasing to Manufacturing to Shipping. This effort took nearly a year to complete alone, because we also revamped a lot of training material.

ISO Guy-

We didn't feel as though we had any n/c's to be written, because we had done a thorough job in preparing for the new standard. It's almost like when we studied for a tough exam in college and then the professor gave a whimpy exam. Yes, we are all the better for it, but in some ways we almost felt cheated because we didn't get a chance to show our stuff.

We already had many of the key ISO 9000:2000 changes already in place, so we put the most effort into our evaluation of training effectiveness. We implemented a system of either knowledge or performance evaluations for all positions from Order Receipt to Receiving to Purchasing to Manufacturing to Shipping. This effort took nearly a year to complete alone, because we also revamped a lot of training material.

I understand what you are saying, trust me as your surveillance audits continue I am sure that will not be so easy. That is when you will be able to strut your stuff!

So you evelaute the effectivness of training with performance evaluations, is that the only way? I would assume you have performance evaluations every 6 or 12 months, so it is possible the effectiveness of the training would not be evaluated for 6 to 12 months, which would mean that possibly poor training could take place for 6 to 12 months or you may send employees out for seminars how do you know if the seminar was effective?? :confused:

Let me clarify. In all areas we have:
1. Initial training and perform knowledge and performance evaluations to ensure effectiveness of training.
2. Semiannual performance appraisals.

Then in most areas of manufacturing we have mechanisms which track quality problems/issues to individuals. If this exceeds a certain number or frequency, then the issue is addressed. Some times the root cause is training other times not.

First of all, I want to say that this is the best site on the Net for sharing ideas and commentary on Quality, and I want to thank everyone for their insights. Secondly, we passed our ISO 9000:2000 certification audit 2 weeks ago. Before you begin sending your accolaids, I must say that we as an organization were quite surprised by several things:
1. The auditor audited by ISO element not by process. When I asked about this, they said that "we'll audit by process during the next surveilence audit." Hmmm.
2. There was no auditing done for the "evaluation of training effectiveness", which I felt was one of the more significant changes to the standard. When I asked about this, they said that "we'll audit by process during the next surveilence audit." Hmmm.
3. When it came to auditing elements in manufacturing, since they knew our company from previous visits, I asked them where they would like to audit, they said "wherever you'd like to take us."
4. There was no follow-up on the nonconformances identified in the last ISO 9000:1994 audit.

The primary objectives of the audit seemed to be on seeing upper management commitment to the quality system and finding quality objectives established at the different departments. While I don't have a problem with looking for these because of their importance, we had an overall feeling that the auditors were trying not to find a nonconformance. In talking with others who have achieved ISO 9000:2000 certification, they had similar feelings that their auditors weren't trying very hard to find a nonconformance.

Given these data points, I'm wondering if the registrars have instructed the auditors to only look for blatent gaps in an organization's quality system to help minimize any potential man-hours required for administration and follow-up between now and December 13. Then once they get everyone certified to the new standard, they become more stringent during the surveilence audits.

Just a thought.
Could be. We wll know the power of the $. I have heard that many Registrars are concerned about their $ flow due to the economy and registration 00 woes!!

BTW Randy, you must have done well if all they could pick on was tagging. In a lead auditor class they said if you want find something look at tagging. I am surprised they put a N/C to it unless they saw some unidentified in other areas. Does this present a clear and present danger to customer satisifaction?

Glad to here that two of you have gotten your recommendation. Our registar is coming in tomorrow and I already have a bad feeling. In the mangement review meeting that took place a month ago I informed everyone of the date of the visit. Monday I get an e-mail from the managment rep. saying she will be on vacation this week. As others have said...all work and no support from those in power above :bonk: :frust: :mad: I know that we will have minor findings, my hope is to keep it in the single digits.

Glad to here that two of you have gotten your recommendation. Our registar is coming in tomorrow and I already have a bad feeling. In the mangement review meeting that took place a month ago I informed everyone of the date of the visit. Monday I get an e-mail from the managment rep. saying she will be on vacation this week. As others have said...all work and no support from those in power above. I know that we will have minor findings, my hope is to keep it in the single digits.

Ouch!...buddy, my condolences. However, the management rep is sometimes just the tour guide on an external audit. Try to think of this as the perfect opportunity to let the people who actually DO the job show their stuff!

Don't sweat it (yeah, easier said than done, right!)...but I'm sure you and your organization will shine through the audit!

Let us know the details! :bigwave:

Given these data points, I'm wondering if the registrars have instructed the auditors to only look for blatent gaps in an organization's quality system to help minimize any potential man-hours required for administration and follow-up between now and December 13. Then once they get everyone certified to the new standard, they become more stringent during the surveilence audits.


I would not be surprised if you are correct. Based on what our registrar has told us, they are booked solid with all the registration audits.

I am a little surprised that they audited elements instead of processes. Not at all what I have been expecting.

I would be interested in knowing who the registrar is, if you could tell me. My e-mail is sandrashepard@kemet.com.