In a thread I posted regarding the possibility of a Generic Quality Management documemtation (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8567&page=2), Mitsu11 said, "The point of ISO [certification(sic)] is your company's success".

I don't think so.

What is the point of ISO certification?

I know I am facetious... but tell me...

Why do companies want ISO certification? To be successful?

Why do companies want ISO certification? Now, there's a sticky question, because to be honest many of us get it because "everyone else does", not quite knowing why...

Had the question been "Why do we use ISO 9001?", I'm sure the reply could have been "To be successful", but the certification in itself does in no way make us succesful.

I think one big reason is a need to provide (reasonably) unbiased evidence saying that we comply, by getting the registrar to state that we do. PR, both internally and externally... Which is not trivial, but in fact pretty important.

/Claes

To me, there are 4 main items why one should get an external certification for a Management System:

1. Because it is a demand from certain customers to be certified in order to be able to quote for business/obtain business.

2. Because an external accredition body can give you, like Claes has put so refined, a fairly good analysis whether your company complies to a certain standard as much as your own assessment tells you. Fresh eyes just see more.

3. Because non-conformities recorded by an accreditation body give you more leverage towards your management to improve certain weak points of your organisation.

4. Because with being certified, a number of otherwise rather annoying/time consuming activities may be reduced such as customer audits - self-assessments which enables you to focus your resources on whats really important for the good functioning of your organisation.

There are probably more good reasons, but i feel the ones above always worked for me :)

What is the point of ISO certification?

Why do companies want ISO certification? To be successful?

I guess it all depends on what your definition of success is. I subscribe to the school of thought that we are in business to make money...plain and simple. All other aspects like contributing to society and giving people jobs are secondary to that main goal of profit.

How to make money? Well, we need a good business system and the ability to meet requirements and we need people to buy our product/service.

If a Customer's requirement is "We will only buy widgets from you if they meeting criteria x, y and z and you are ISO 9001:2000 registered", well, you guessed it. We can either choose to not to meet all of the requirements and lose the Customer and lose money, or we can meet all of the requirements and theoretically make money (yes, I know, there are other factors involved here, but I'm trying to keep this simplistic).

If the only way we can stay in business and continue to make a profit is if we are registered, then we pursue registration, it's that simple.

That's the first reason to go for ISO 9001....money.

The second reason to go for ISO 9001 is....more money.

You're meeting all of your Customer's requirements. Great! Now what? Time to focus on improvement. Where to improve? What to improve? How to improve?

A well-defined and implemented management system will have a strong planning tool integrated within the organization. Items such as process cability, supply costs, resource management, energy consumption, etc. are analyzed for areas where there are gaps and/or gains are to be had.

You spend less to provide the product/service. You can keep it at the current cost, however, and increase the spread thus increasing the profit. Or sell it at a lower cost, gain more Customers and increase the profit.

Either way, there is more money to be made.

I'll grant you that there are probably tools out there which allow an organization to make money and to make more money. The wonderful thing about ISO 9001 is that it doesn't care which tool you use...it's just standardizes it. It wants everyone in the company to use the same tool(s) in the same manner(s) - so that we all gain from the methodologies we've implemented.

There are, however, no guarantees in life. Your product/service may become obsolete. Your competition may develop a new technology allowing them to surpass you. Evolution and change and economics has us watching companies come and go. ISO 9001 registration is by no means a guarantee that your company will be successful, let alone survive...but it does provide you with the opportunity to do so.

I don't want to be argumentative but IMHO your #1 is the only valid statement. Most companies are certified ONLY because they are forced to by their customers.

As for #2 - I disagree that fresh eyes see more. The eyes of you and your customer can understand your process far more than any external auditor. I would challenge everyone here who is certified to document for us a case where an external auditor went into your plant and found a nonconformance that made you say "I didn't know that and it sure does have a negative effect on the customer". It is more likely they find a nonconformance to obscure interpretations of the standard or an anomoly that has little or no effect on a customer.

#3 - If you need an outside auditor to convince management to improve a truly deficient area, you have more problems than certification. If your management is truly behind your QMS, you shouldn't need outside help. You and your customer know when your underwear is dirty - wash it.

#4 - The trend is going in the complete opposite direction. With the inception of 16949 we are seeing more and more requests for onsite supplier audits. Supplier manuals are arriving every day with self-assessments attached. More and more customers are driving requirements down the supply base in what seems to be an attempt to micro-manage their suppliers. We have more requests for audits now than we had prior to our QS in 1995.

I think my answer to SSwanson would have to stop at your entry #1. The only reason for certification is because we have to (now if the customers would stick to that and quit giving out contracts to non-certified competitors, maybe that would become a valid reason).

For all you skeptics - I did not say there is no value to a good QMS. I believe ISO gives a good base to any quality system and a good QMS can benefit all companies. I think SSwanson was limiting the question to certification and not the benefit of a good system.

Dave

Hold on there, kids! We all seem to be talking about generic documents for the sake of achieving certification. That is not the point of ISO, and if you are using this theory, you may pass certification, but your company will not consider ISO to be a success. The point of ISO is your company's success.

I feel the need to defend myself. In that previous thread, I was not referring to the ISO certification as the key to a company's success. In fact, I was meant quite the opposite. The point of the ISO standard - its intent - when applied with intelligence - is your company's success. I would guess that those companies who apply ISO-like concepts without any desire for certification are the best applications of the theories and principles, simply because they are not focusing on someone else's interpretation of their own system. (Of course, this is based on zero data and analysis.)

The point of certification in itself, yes, is jumping through that flaming hoop held by a mad, screaming clown. (No offense to auditors. I like clowns.) Unfortunately, that is what drives most companies: fear of losing money rather than a genuine strive for improvement.

The point of the ISO standard - its intent - when applied with intelligence - is your company's success.

I guess this is where I disagree.

I guess this is where I disagree.

In the good spirit of the Cove, could you share with us why you disagree? :D

ISO/QS/TS in of themselves can be wonderful business tools. While many companies achieve compliance without registration, we never hear to much about those companies. What we hear are news releases, articles etc... about paying a company $15,000+++++ to have another resource issue a peice of paper that says they agree with you.

And then charge a yearly amount to keep agreeing with you.

My cynical self,:mg:

Al...

I agree with Claes that many companies have certification because they have to in order to be competitive. I also agress with RCBeyette that the driving force is money.

I disagree with Mitsu11 for this reason:

The initial implementation of ISO 9001 et.al. wasn't to benefit businesses. The Home Office in the UK was approached to do something after it was determined that over 350 Million Pounds Sterling had been invested in software (of all things) which did not perform to consumer expectations. The old ISO concept, that had been around since 1909, was pulled out of the closet, refitted with the American Military SOP technique and turned loose on the public as a scheme of best business practices.

The initial goal of ISO certification was (and still is) to protect consumers.

RCBeyette took the thread a level deeper into the money aspect which is why we do it as well.

In the past, I sometimes thought of a Quality Management System as negative reporting. We concentrated on failures, complaints, corrective actions, etc. Today, under the new norm, we also recognize that the things we do right that make our customers happy and satisified are also important.

The name of the game is profit. It is important to know what we are doing right... and what we are doing wrong. We can not have increased customer satisfaction, productivity and increased profitability until we recognize our strengths and weaknesses.

The philosophy is... if a company improves productivity, they will make better widgets for a better price thus benefiting consumers.

The fact that we all have jobs because of that ISO thingy and/or companies are successful because they implement ISO principles is not, and was not, the intent of ISO.

Or am I wrong?

The initial goal of ISO certification was (and still is) to protect consumers.

If my memory serves me. . . Toys and Heavy equipment manufacturers were the first to come under ISO Certification. I can agree with this part of the statement. This was the original intent.

But. . . ISO, like so many other legitimate attempts to regulate, control or protect, have been entered into the arena of free enterprise. If there is a buck to be made. . . either by being certified or by certifying others. . . it will be made. :soap:

ISO/QS/TS in of themselves can be wonderful business tools. While many companies achieve compliance without registration, we never hear to much about those companies. What we hear are news releases, articles etc... about paying a company $15,000+++++ to have another resource issue a peice of paper that says they agree with you.

And then charge a yearly amount to keep agreeing with you.

My cynical self,:mg:

Al...Even without a formal poll, I would guess a majority of our Covers, even the ones who make a living by being 3rd party auditors, have a cynical view of the 3rd party concept of auditing to a Standard. The cynicism ranges from mild (we would be merely "compliant" except for customer requirements) to outright vitriol (ISO 3rd party auditing is a scam!)

Few of us, of course, have the time or energy to take a truly dispassionate look at the certification process and determine whether it is necessary for us as customers to DEMAND formal registration by our suppliers. (I find it is always more instructive to take a look at a disputed process from more than one angle before reaching my own conclusion on its "rightness" or "wrongness")

As a customer (regardless of what I'm shopping for), my primary concern is to get a product or service which meets or exceeds my expectations about form, fit, function, value.

Thus said, my barber and my landscape maintenance crew do work I am more competent to judge than any third party. Why would I need them to additionally pay to be registered by a third party? In the case of the barber, my state says he needs a license to operate because of general health and hygiene concerns. The licensing process does NOT say whether he is a good barber or bad barber, only that he is hygienic.

In products I buy, I admit I look for a UL (Underwriter's Laboratory) label on electrical products because it gives me confidence I won't be electrocuted, but that doesn't tell me whether the DVD player is good or not or whether it is a good value, only that I won't be electrocuted.

I guess the cynicism most folks feel is that too many customers are equating an ISO label with a UL or CE label as a minimum mark of safety.

The problem is those same customers have no clear idea of what they are safe FROM.

from bad products?
from late deliveries?
from bad value?
from liability if a product fails?
from fraud?
So, exactly what does having a supplier formally registered to ISO9001:2000 do for a customer? I've been in business for 40 years; I've seen Quality concepts and Systems come and go. Whether or not a Supplier was formally registered or merely compliant with one of those Systems was never a determining factor for me in selecting or approving a supplier.

I almost always let the product or service provided by a supplier speak for itself. Did a supplier have a formal 5S Plan? I didn't care so long as he had a neat, clean operation when I went to visit.

Did a supplier know what a Kaizen event was? I didn't care as long as he talked about and showed off the steady improvements he'd made in his operations over time. (My barber installed a "whole shop" vacuum system - no dust raised from sweeping, no noise from a shop vac running between the chairs. Does he know Kaizen? Will I ask him? Nah! I would rather know his views on the clowns we have running for Congress and the Senate.)

Document Control? I built some birdhouses and feeders for my wife to put in our yard. I bought some plans and bills of materials at ACE Hardware. I bought the lumber and Plexiglass at Menard's Lumber; I used aspen instead of pine called for in the plans because I liked the grain pattern better. I had plenty of stainless steel fasteners and some hinges left over from previous projects, so I didn't get the ones listed in the BOM. I mixed brands of fasteners. I spilled a can of beer over the plans and ripped them as I was setting them over a sawhorse to dry, so I ended up throwing them away. I didn't keep the receipt for the lumber. The Plexiglass scratched easily from the squirrels, but it still serves a purpose of letting us know when it's time to refill the seeds.

So, no documentation. I probably should have used Lexan to reduce the amount of scratching and clouding, but neither the birds nor my wife care. The squirrels and the chipmunks don't seem to care either. My neighbor said, "Cool! Can I borrow your bandsaw to cut some wood so I can make some, too?"

Bottom line: You may pursue ISO registration because a customer demands it, but having it ONLY benefits your organization as a guideline to follow toward improvement, not your customers. The proof of the pudding is how many ISO registered organizations

still produce dreck,
still have late deliveries,
still need to have a Corrective Action Plan in place
because registration, Poka Yoke, Mistake Proofing, Kaizen, Corrective Action, and Continual Improvement did NOT prevent nonconformance.

The point is: Achieving a Quality Management System worthy of the name is a continual PROCESS, not a once-and-done event. ISO or TQM or Baldrige or any other 3rd party system is only a guide, not an end in itself. Organizations may be excellent with their own systems; organizations may be terrible even if they follow the letter (but not the spirit) of a 3rd party system.

The philosophy is... if a company improves productivity, they will make better widgets for a better price thus benefiting consumers.

The fact that we all have jobs because of that ISO thingy and/or companies are successful because they implement ISO principles is not, and was not, the intent of ISO.

Or am I wrong?

You are right except for the unfortunate circumstances of a company doing all that you say and still going out of business and having job losses since something changed. The something could be a new product or service that replaces the original, a change in laws especially environmental, or just bad business decisions by management.

Even quality professionals can sometimes feel that the ISO systems are overly bureaucratic, costly to maintain, etc. but in general feel that they provide good guidelines for the development of a management system. The larger question is whether a company's management is supportive and disciplined enough to meet accepted quality management standards without a third party verifying that it is done.

Just doing the right thing, whether it is registered externally or not, does not necessarily mean that a company is guaranteed success. Regardless and IMHO, the ISO standards are probably useful to any organization unless they are very mature in their entire business operations including how they treat customers and employees.

Bill Pflanz

In a thread I posted regarding the possibility of a Generic Quality Management documemtation (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8567&page=2), Mitsu11 said, "The point of ISO [certification(sic)] is your company's success".

I don't think so.

What is the point of ISO certification?

I know I am facetious... but tell me...

Why do companies want ISO certification? To be successful?

Hi,

I placed this lesson in the 'Articles Competition’ last month (I know it isn't an article as such). It is titled 'What is a Quality Management System?' http://elsmar.com/Forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2176
In it I ask the questions 'Why do we have a Safety System, Environmental System and Quality System?’ People have to break into groups and respond. You will be amazed at the responses you get from the floor, Supervisors and Management. This lesson was written for the front line operator level but I have used parts of it on higher levels with some excellent results as it gets people thinking about the system and why THEY have it. I was really looking for an answer to why is our QA System certified but not legislated yet or Safety System and Environmental Systems are not certified but are legislated.
Here is the thread with the instructions for user notes etc
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=77947#post77947

GregB

Okay, here is my penny worth..... our main customer is Toyota and they do not require certification to ISO9001 or TS16949. To my knowledge none of the Japanese Automakers have this requirement.
The Toyota quality manual requires the same items as did the QS9000 and I'm sure they will change it to reflect the TS16949 requirements but, still won't require (at least as of today)that we obtain certification.
The fact that you have to pay to get the certification is one reason their not interested, assuming that some how that cost will get rolled into a piece price or tool.(We have 10 locations)
They follow a PDCA system and use the process approach. If there seems to be potential issues or obvious problems, they send reps to your facility to work with you to figure out how to correct it. If the quality of the product is important they'll be Big Brother rather than passing it on to a babysitter.

On the other side of the coin.... we've decided to obtain business from the BIG 3 and I don't think anyone took into consideration the certification requirement, so we have some facilities that say hey, we only do work for Toyota and the system we currently have works just fine and we're not changing it. This now creates 2 systems because regardless what TS calls out, if it's not required by Toyota and not already identified within the organization as a requirement, life goes on unchanged.

They do however, require the ISO14001 environmental cerification but, the government does has great impact in this requirement.

My $0.02:
I worked for a company whose quality system was subject to audit by several different customers/industries. In one instance, the auditors were teams from multiple companies in the same industry. There was very little oversight, credentialing, etc. Some of the auditors were slackers, some were overzealous (and I think paid by the finding), some were just plain incompetent, some had an axe to grind, etc. We had to answer every finding anyway (How do you respond when someone goes through 3 years worth of records, over 1500 pieces, and generates a two page finding because one record had one line incorrectly filled?).

My points for 3rd party registration are these:
1) Make my customer more profitable by reducing their onsite audit load
2) Make my company more profitable by having one consistent 3rd party audit team (reduce the number of man-days spent being audited and increase the number of man-days making improvements)
3) Reduce the BS by having oversight of auditors, registrars, credentialing, etc. done by an independent body (like the RAB)
4) Finally, yeah, I'll pay for that (with the savings above). John Seddon and Jim Wade would probably have a fit but: I like paying the guy who audits me; it keeps them honest. We've all heard stories but let's be fair. I want someone who has a vested interest in seeing me get registered. Do I want to trade them a check for a certificate. No. Do I want to have BS findings generated and get removed from the Approved Supplier list by some hack with no accountability. Also, no. I want a set of (somewhat) independent eyes helping me look for Opportunities For Improvement.
5) I believe with 9k2k and TS2, the days of "Say what you do, do what you say, and produce consistent mediocrity" are over. I would like my Continual Improvement activities independently certified, thank you very much.
-Icy

I couldn't say it better myself. We just changed registrars and I think we found one who fits this description by Sachem. We just finished our first surveillance audit and the findings were mostly needed improvements. I really feel like we have been helped instead of frowned on by an Ultimate Auditor. Takes most of the anxiety out of audits too.

I ran into an interesting article relevant to this subject. This article was published in ASQ Software Quality Professional in the December 2003 issue.

http://www.asq.org/pub/sqp/past/vol6_issue1/issac.pdf

This article is heavy on statistics.
Govind.