I have posted this poll once before, earlier this year. I believe it's time for an update: What is your current situation concerning the transfer to ISO 9001:2000? The deadline is looming.

Current situation in Sweden:

Appr.4700 companies certified acc to ISO9001. Certifying bodies claim that appr. 30% of their customers have upgraded so far, and fear that they may not have the resources to take care of the stampede when it begins...

How about you?

We will not transfer
We have not started
We're working on it
Done it...

We have just completed our up-grade desk audit and are scheduled for the end of August by NSF.

Done - :) - 1st surveillance audit in August.

The May Quality Digest says that as of April 22, 2003 only 18% of companies in all of N. America have transitioned. An article in there blames the low transition rate on the poor economy. So, I suppose someone (lots of someones) must believe it will cost more than it is worth, or that other uses for those dollars will give more bang-for-the-buck.

Hi, all.

We finished in Feb. of this year.

I tend to agree with Mike, but I have not actually heard anyone say that they have made a decision to not make the transfer.

I do think, however, that because of the lack of resources there may be some who just won't get done in time. The next few months might be a very profitable time to be an auditor,

Craig

Been done for almost 3 years now, well more accurately all the changes have been in draft form for about the past 3 years. We were just waiting for management to decide yeah we better do this. So our registration audit to 9K2K will be in September of this year.

One client - last April - upgraded - 2 surveilance so far.
One client is QS - will prob go to ISO - being tier 3
2 others going for ISO - 2000 obviously - not previously registered.

Most of my consulting clients are new registrations, so they will be doing 9001:2000 or TS 16949:2002 and aren't really worried about the 12/15 deadline. People attending auditor and transition training seem to be a mix of new and old. Those with current certifications to the 1994 standard all seem to be planning an upgrade within the next 6~7 months for some reason. :confused: My feeling is that everyone is waiting for the last six months of 2003 and will be a part of the stampede. I plan to be very busy during that time of the year.

BTW an aerospace company I audited last month fired one of their suppliers who dropped their ISO 9001 quality system for financial reasons. They didn't see it as worth the effort. The customer didn't drop them because they lost their certification though -- they dropped them for a decline in product quality and lack of responsiveness. Hmmmmmm....

Completed last October, one surveilance audit so far. Now on to more things.

From last week's QualityInsider Survey:

Q:As the deadline looms for the ISO 9001:2000 transition, only about 20 percent of ISO 9000:1994-registered companies have completed the transition. The odds seem very good that many companies will lose their registration.

Why do you think the percentage is so small?

- Lack of interest by registered companies 45% (149)
- Poor economy 22.1% (73)
- Other 10.6% (35)
- The new standard is too different. 10% (34)
- Lack of promotion of the transition 8.2% (27)
- Insufficient time to make the transition 2.1% (7)
- Lack of auditors 1.8% (6)

Originally posted by howste

BTW an aerospace company I audited last month fired one of their suppliers who dropped their ISO 9001 quality system for financial reasons. They didn't see it as worth the effort. The customer didn't drop them because they lost their certification though -- they dropped them for a decline in product quality and lack of responsiveness. Hmmmmmm....

Yeah, like, "Have your letter of resignation on my desk before the end of the day." Nothing you can do about these large corporations and their bullying tactics. If the records back it up, fine. Problem is, they don't have to explain a thing to anyone. They are the customer. It could also mean that the buyer got a better lunch, season tickets, or a lawn tractor from a competitive supplier. I know that happens. For real. If you are dealing with Customers like that and there is fierce competition, it is suicide to let the certification lapse and give them an excuse. It also doesn't mean that they wouldn't have been dropped anyway. Watch the spin. JMHO:smokin:

Our first surveilance is in October. We are currently running 9k2k, QS and TE.

I agree with Mike on this. Most people I have talked to pointed to the # of companies registered to the now outdated standard and QS. It's part of job security and self perpetuation.

I think there will be a rush but not as bad as most think. Many have no desire to up-grade for various reasons: Money, Economy, Value, Return, etc. Many do not have the discipline for a QMS, even many who are registered do not have the discipline.

Originally posted by energy
Yeah, like, "Have your letter of resignation on my desk before the end of the day." Nothing you can do about these large corporations and their bullying tactics. If the records back it up, fine. Problem is, they don't have to explain a thing to anyone. They are the customer. It could also mean that the buyer got a better lunch, season tickets, or a lawn tractor from a competitive supplier. I know that happens. For real. If you are dealing with Customers like that and there is fierce competition, it is suicide to let the certification lapse and give them an excuse. It also doesn't mean that they wouldn't have been dropped anyway. Watch the spin. JMHO:smokin:

This aerospace company was not a large company, and did not have a requirement for ISO 9001 certification of their suppliers. They really did drop them for quality performance issues after they quit following ISO 9001 requirements.

Had our pre-assessment last month and walked away with one "easy-to-fix" finding and few opportunities for improvement. Transition audit is scheduled for early July 2003. Looking at the auditor's schedule, it seems pretty empty. Asked why and just received a shrug in response.

Then again, I question the validity of the whole December deadline. As I mentioned a while back, one of my friends had his Registrar tell him that they could push off transitioning until January..even March!...2004 and not lose their '94 status.

Nothing like setting a "firm" date! :rolleyes:

My company upgraded in April 2002 and has been through 2 surveillances since then. I'm glad it's behind me!

I talked to another company last week that has put off the upgrade and when I asked why, their response was to blame the economy. But I don't get that one. Depending on how you do it, upgrade costs aren't that bad. I wonder about the commitment of management to the quality system, when I hear "the economy" as the reason for delay.

The other reason I've heard is that it's better to wait until the auditors have done a bunch of 2000 audits so you don't fall victim to new auditor zeal. That one I can understand.

I have to agree that the bigger the company the more the problems. Big companies have people with high saleries that count on delegation to get a job done without providing the appropriate resources.

And when the crap hits the fan those delegators become silent and turn their heads as if to say, human resources hired him/her, not my fault. As they go into the restroom, they should not think about what they are going to do, because they have already done it to the "underlings".

Al...

Originally posted by RCBeyette
---X---
Then again, I question the validity of the whole December deadline. As I mentioned a while back, one of my friends had his Registrar tell him that they could push off transitioning until January..even March!...2004 and not lose their '94 status.

Nothing like setting a "firm" date! :rolleyes:

That's a good point... I'm also intrigued by the fact that a three year time span was allowed for the upgrade when the standard has an expected life span of a mere five years... The only visible result has been a world class display of procrastination. :rolleyes:

/Claes

Agreed, Claes. I don't think any additional time should be allowed. If you could not do it in 3 years, tough. Procrastinators should not be rewarded. Either you commit to doing something or you don't. If you screw-up you should pay the price, just like anywhere else in business. It's that "R" word again: Responsibility. We need more of it in this world -- corporatelly (is that a word?), governmentally, and personally.

I would like to see more data on why those that do not transition decide on that course of action. It might teach ISO something -- should they care to listen. JMO.

Originally posted by RCBeyette

Then again, I question the validity of the whole December deadline. As I mentioned a while back, one of my friends had his Registrar tell him that they could push off transitioning until January..even March!...2004 and not lose their '94 status.

Nothing like setting a "firm" date! :rolleyes:

I would like to know what Registrar they are using as far as I know it is not true once 12/15/03 hits if you have not transitoned you would no longer be considered certified.

May I ask what Registar your friend is using?

If it's not an accredited certificate, it's hardly worth the paper it's written on. As it is right now anyone can go out and issue non-accredited certificates to any standard they choose to. It's just like those registrars that give letters to companies stating that they have "entered into an agreement to be their registrar" to demonstrate to their customers that they are on their way to ISO certification. In actuality they may have done absolutely nothing besides pay a fee. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Jim Wade
Ah, but this (their argument goes) isn't just anyone.

It's the same dependable and professional registrar issuing certificates using (they would claim) the same hi-quality processes as they always use.

The idea makes sense to me - as much, that is, as anything in the certification process makes sense.

Dec 03 is an artbitrary deadline. Why should an organisation not take longer to 'transition' (hate that word!) if it wishes, and stick with the lower level '94 cert for longer? JMO

rgds Jim

As Howste stated if it is an unaccredited, certificate what the heck good is it?? FWIW I could issue those same companies at a major cost savings that say sure the comply with ISO 9001/2/3:1994 after I have evaluated their system, heck for that matter I could do the same with 9001:2000. Would I accept a suppliers certificate that was not accredited, nope! I am passing the requirement down to my customer, I am not saying you have to be ISO certified for us to use you, but don’t try to pass yourself off as ISO certified when in fact you are not. You know just as well as I do that the companies that are having this so called dependable and professional registrar issue them a certificate are doing it for one reason and one reason only, that is to give the appearance they are certified.

On another note, I would just warn all readers of your posts considering the little game you were playing posting as 3 (who knows how many more) different people.

Nice weather we are having Jim!

I find that many companies that have been certified for a long time still use the BS5750 logo on their stationary and publications, even after getting ISO9001:2000 !

Might as well just self declare to BS5750 !!

Originally posted by Jim Wade
Martin, I
So maybe we have the beginnings of an ISO 900x hierarchy here something like (bear with me):

Level 3: ISO 9004:200 certificate (BSI already offers this - see http://emea.bsi-global.com/bpir)

Level 2: 9001:2000 certificate

Level 1: ongoing 900x:1994 certificate (as NQA are - or have been considering).

Just a thought. Nothing could be worse than the existing charade, could it?

rgds Jim

Again, BSI can issue all the certs they want for 9004:2000 but as far as I know they are not accreditied certificates. So what good does it really do you if your customers require you to be ISO certified, same goes for your 900X:1994 certificate deal, what good are they if your customer will not accept them??

Just a thought. Nothing could be worse than the existing charade, could it?

What kind of statement is that coming from you???

Again nice weather we are having eh Jim, Nosmo, Tom etc....

Much as I hate to jump into a circular argument .... we have discussed the benefits of certification in around 100 other threads, haven't we?

I have spoken to a couple of major certification bodies recently and they are okay with the progress for customers making the transition to the latest edition of the standard but recognize that not all will make the "deadline" that IS artificial but IS an attempt to make sure those that want to change progress towards a goal. There will still be companies registered to the old edition and they will still be allowed to make the change as certification bodies are entitled to take into account the work they have seen on the existing system when they assess the "new" system.

The discussion about a tier of standards is, IMHO useless. Any certification body can issue a certificate to anything. Back in the 90s I helped to develop an assessment process for one of the major certification bodies that looked at the European Business Excellence Model as the assessment model. That created a stink because we were seen to be muddying the awards system water and assessment by a certification body was somehow less pure than that of an award assessement team. This despite the fact that we never offered to issue a certificate, just to provide the service to assist customers.

Let's just keep one accredited certification standard ISO 9001.2000 and then anything else is tailored to the customer's needs - if it is some form of recognition you want for your ISO 9004.2000, EFQM, Baldridge system then market it yourself.

Jim Said: PS imagine a world where one or more of the registrars decide to break out of the failing accreditation system .... interesting, huh?

Maybe it is interesting, it has been tried in the past, anyone remember the HP initiative where you get to self certify against ISO 9001/2/3.1994? It was also discussed in the early days of accreditation when its value was questioned.

Jim: is it accreditation that you think is failing or certification, I lose track.

Hi everyone, :bigwave:
We'll in our case, the management has no decision yet with regards to the upgrade. Considering, that one of our customer doesn't care whether we are an ISO certified or not. As long as we deliver their parts based on their standard.

The management is considering other certification.

Anybody familiar with the SAC (Semiconductor Assembly Council) Certification.? This is actually based on the three different standards (ISO9001:2000, ISO9004:2000 and TS16949:2002) as I previously discussed. If we could find somebody who would sponsor us, probably we'll go for it. and this would probably lessen the expenses if we go for one certification.

But, IMHO, if I would be the one who would decide on it, I would like to go to the upgrade immediately because time is already ticking and implementing the new standard would not be that easy.

Raffy

Hi, all

I'd be interested to know if anyone has heard of a registered ISO 9000:1994 company that has said it absolutely will NOT try to transition. I know I haven't, but if there are a lot, that would explain the lag.

I have not heard of anyone saying flat out they will not transition. I have heard Medical Device Companies say we are not going to 9001:2000 but to 13485:2003. I work for a Medical Company, however, I have suggested against leaving 9001 just in case we decide we want to ge into non-Medical business again. Plus I like the fact the 9001:2000 requires customer satisfaction and continual improvement where 13485:2003 does not. On the other hand 13485:2003 requires that you keep records for a certian period of time and requires more than the "6" procedures that 9001 requires. I think between the two of them it tends to make sure you have a very robust system, what one leaves out the other pretty much covers. JMHO

I know I am going to be very busy over the next few months doing subcontracting for a couple of Registrars that will have a number of 9001:2000 registraions coming due. Lucky, lucky , lucky me! :bonk:

Originally posted by Craig H.
Hi, all

I'd be interested to know if anyone has heard of a registered ISO 9000:1994 company that has said it absolutely will NOT try to transition. I know I haven't, but if there are a lot, that would explain the lag.

Hmmm... Nor have I, but someone has responded to the poll saying so...

/Claes

Is 2 requests for help in 2 days any indication of a stampede? Especially when I say I'm available July 1st, and they say - shoot?

It's gonna be interesting.

Laura-

Are you looking for help?

While the discussion has generally been who has and who has not upgraded, I think the next question is who has seen any benefit from the upgrade?

My company upgraded recently with no discernible benefit whatsoever.

Originally posted by ISO GUY
Laura-

Are you looking for help?

Not yet. But I can forward any requests over and above my capacity to you.

Laura

Originally posted by Davey
While the discussion has generally been who has and who has not upgraded, I think the next question is who has seen any benefit from the upgrade?

My company upgraded recently with no discernible benefit whatsoever.

Clearly a point to consider. I opened a poll in the thread Was it worth it (http://www.elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6375) based on this very question.

/Claes

Hey, remember me, the one who, on page 2 of these posts, said she'd upgraded in April 2002 and had 2 surveillances under her belt and was sooooo happy that it was over?

Well, I changed jobs. I'm now working for one of the thousands of companies who haven't upgraded and are now in a panic. :bonk:

So, here I go again. I hate changing jobs....On Friday you know everything about your job and the following Monday, you know nothing. Change is good, change is good, change is good.....

Originally posted by RosieA
Hey, remember me, the one who, on page 2 of these posts, said she'd upgraded in April 2002 and had 2 surveillances under her belt and was sooooo happy that it was over?

Well, I changed jobs. I'm now working for one of the thousands of companies who haven't upgraded and are now in a panic. :bonk:

So, here I go again. I hate changing jobs....On Friday you know everything about your job and the following Monday, you know nothing. Change is good, change is good, change is good.....

At least you can tell everyone they don't need to panic because it's so easy. :vfunny: :biglaugh:

Originally posted by RosieA
---X---
So, here I go again. I hate changing jobs....On Friday you know everything about your job and the following Monday, you know nothing. Change is good, change is good, change is good.....

LMAO...:biglaugh: Well, Rosie, at least you have one thing in your favour: You have done it before, and you know it can be done. The question is wether it's easier the second time around because you've done it before or if it's worse because you know what a chore it is? Anyway: Good luck...again..

/Claes

The finish line (or rather deadline) is in sight. How are we doing?

/Claes

The finish line (or rather deadline) is in sight. How are we doing?

Finished the race and am now hanging out in the locker room, cooling down. :)

I'd like to thank my sponsors, Tim Hortons for their wonderful coffee, the country of Austria for their fabulous chocolate, and EastDell Estates in the Niagara region for their 2001 black cab wine. I couldn't have done it without ya!

There I go again, thinking life is like a car race again...zoom zoom...

In the last few weeks I have had three calls for assistance with the cavet, it must be finished by the end of this year. Not exactly a stampede, but certainly an indicator of some sort.

Rick

In the last few weeks I have had three calls for assistance with the cavet, it must be finished by the end of this year. Not exactly a stampede, but certainly an indicator of some sort.

Rick

Considering the number of badge holders still clinging to the old version we should get a stampede at some time.. but I must admit that I expected it to start earlier... Many seem to be cutting it rather close.

Then again, maybe we will see a sharp decrease in the number of certificates? :confused:

/Claes

Well, if anyone else is like me they were hit by the "thunderous hammer of comprehension" at the start of this year.

Looking at the Gap analysis our Assessor did, there were 11 items we had to address. - Only 11? plenty of time, do it in 2 weeks.

It was only when I started researching on the web at the start of this year, seeing other people discuss things, seeing examples, that I realised the true nature of the changes, and the reasons for them.

As usual, the wheels promptly fell off the wagon, production increased, staff took holidays, left the firm, were off sick.

And now its 8 months later, with still lots left to do.

Which is why I am working 55 hours a week atm.

I hear you Shaun,

At first we were planning to get it done in 2001, but things (including a ISO 14001 certification that sucked up a good deal of our stamina) got in the way.

We ended up passing the hurdle this summer... Only two years late... :rolleyes:. I believe that the generous three year deadline was a very mixed blessing. All it did was to promote procrastination.

/Claes