we have talked alot about whether the standard is useful, but as a matter of philosophy, would You spend your own $$$ for the registration.

You run into a few companies that don't, but enact the ISO requirements just the same.

would it matter to you whether the company was little/small/etc? I'd set up a poll if I could (could you help marc??)

they say People vote truest with their pocketbook. But I'd bet not too many QA would vote themselves out of a job :rolleyes:

For myself, I'd spend all kinds of $$$ on process improvements and training- But the actual registration is probably non-value added for an enlightened management.

we have talked alot about whether the standard is useful, but as a matter of philosophy, would You spend your own $$$ for the registration.

You run into a few companies that don't, but enact the ISO requirements just the same.

would it matter to you whether the company was little/small/etc? I'd set up a poll if I could (could you help marc??)

they say People vote truest with their pocketbook. But I'd bet not too many QA would vote themselves out of a job :rolleyes:

For myself, I'd spend all kinds of $$$ on process improvements and training- But the actual registration is probably non-value added for an enlightened management.


J

I tend to agree with your reasoning except...

To me it is worth it to have an outside "set of eyes" (with a secrecy agreement, mind you) look at how the system is doing every once in a while. Even enlightened managers may miss something because they are too blinded by the trees to see the forest. JMHO.

Craig H.

I have run into that question with customers in the past.

I think the ISO certificate belongs to every employee that is involved with any activity that falls under the control of the quality management system.

It is a badge of honour, or in this case... a badge of quality. It means that everyone that truly supports the QMS within the company, also supports positive customer relations, wants to reduce waste and reduncancy, wants to be productive, knows that there is an organizational focus to providing employees with the best training, best materials, best equipment, the best everything, in an effort to promote customer and employee satisfaction.

One of the things we do as part of the quality systems I create is to evaluate the QMS from an employee perspective. In this case, employees are the customers of the Quality Manager and executive management.

Successful ISO certification creates a feel good factor. Once that is created, the company seems to bond together. It is an accomplishment that only an organization can make. And everyone within that organization can feel proud of their contributions for the success of the whole.

I voted no, but maybe I am not thinking along the same lines as you are. If I had my own business it would not be anything that required any kind of certification. Now, if the poll asked if I would implement a quality system, you betcha!

Personally, I find the poll too black-and-white. My vote would be for "Depends on the circumstances."

Would I implement a Business Management System? YES.

Would I register to ISO 9001:XXXX? Depends on the circumstances. Customers may call for it...Customers may not. If I was only able to maintain my profit margin because the Customer's required it, I would go for it.

I voted yes, I would spend my own $$$ for ISO 9001 registration for the following reasons,
1)It instigates you to set up your organization to a standard operating framework, allowing for unlimited quality concepts to be integrated.
2)It disciplines you to follow and care for your designed system.
3)It enables you to benchmark yourself on a global level.
4)It is a universal communicative medium.
5)It adds value to any organization’s resources due to the above mentioned points.

I voted no for the following reasons:

Registration by itself is not value-added. True, it does send a signal to outsiders that you have a QMS, which may impact future business. But that could be communicated in a number of other ways (e.g. ISO "compliant").

In my own business there would definitely be a strong and effective business management system. And it certainly would utilize many elements found in the ISO standards. Obviously, meeting customer requirements would be one key factor - hence a paradox if the customer requires ISO registration. In that case I would have to weigh the future profits against the cost of registration.

But, having my druthers, I would create my own management system that uniquely applied to the business, without having to artificially fit square pegs into round holes; The effort to conform in some areas, again, not being value-added.

I would argue that Sal's points #1-4 could be accomplished through good management without having a certificate hanging on the wall.

Anyway, IMHO and FWIW...

I agree completely with RCB - it depends.

Hmmmmm - Careful you don't fall off that fence Mike LOL.

I also voted no for pretty much the same reasons as Rob. I think he said it very well.

Dave

Hello Rob,
I appreciate your views and accept them as being extremely valid and are worth a great deal.
Any system is only as good as what the resources make it to be.
I based my argument on the following reasons,
Non compliant/compliant - able to deliver a product to the satisfaction of the end customer, irrelevant of what the internal customer is going through, sometimes at the risk of losing his/her life. Not to mention flooding the market with their products at the expense of companies that have made it their philosophy to abide by a requirement in the interest of all. Forget about whistle blowing regards the conditions or other issues they’ll only get you in a far worse situation.
Registered companies – able to focus on all of their customers ( internal and external ) requirements. Where the companies resources are looked after with pride and esteem, not to mention the re-investments. It is true to say that the risks are still there but much more under control.

IMHO, registration regulates the management system within an organization and eliminates the compliance gap (those who comply and those who pretend to comply) sets a level playing field for all. I strongly believe that grants should be provided to help companies achieve registration may be this criteria should have been included along with what has been suggested by Roxane earlier.

With all respect Sal, your post indicates that those who are registered comply and those that are not registered "pretend to comply". I suggest this is certainly not the case and would go so far as to argue that there are probably just as many pretenders in the certified ranks as in the non-certified. The QMS is what makes a company good or bad in the terms you describe, not the registration.

I strongly disagree with your comments re: compliant/non compliant. A non compliant company is perfectly capable of delivering a better product than a compliant one. That is all in the perception of the customer, not in the meeting of a standard. Non-compliant companies are no more likely to disregard the needs of an internal customer. Again, the certification process doesn't guarantee there is no risk of anyone losing their life (very extreme, but I guess it is a reality).

No one is arguing that company philosophy and commitment to a good quality management system create good business practice. I think we all agree they do. If it were the certification that ensured success, you could theroretically remove the management system and company philosophy and still have success. You can't do that.

The determination of compliance is done by the same person who gets paid for the certification. If this isn't serving two masters, I don't know what is. If a registrar has a client with 10 plants, do you honestly think that client will be found to be non-compliant and put on probation? Sure, line up the registrars who will loudly proclaim "FOUL". They are all above reproach. So are all their auditors who might feel a slight pressure to maintain their boss' clients and not suspend any. Point is, I don't think a certificate will ever guarantee the Utopia you describe. Once again it comes to the bottom line - money.

I suggest the only monitor of a company's quality system is their customer. Paper means nothing. If the customer is happy with the supplier, it can be argued they have the best system for their company. The guy down the street with the certificate can scream all he likes but bottom line is the customer uses the supplier who best meets their needs.

Maybe I am old fashioned on this but that's my opinion.

Dave

Hello Dave,
Do excuse me for not continuing with this interesting thread but I have to get home as it is past 5 in the afternoon here and have commitments else where, I try and get back later.
Thanks for your valid comments

I voted no for the same reasons. The actual registration buys you nothing except in those industries that "require" it to do business as a Prime.

II used to work in teh semiconductor industry in a high reliability segment in the early 80s. I was overwhelmed wiht the various customer's and governmant agency audits and requirements, so when ISO 9000 came along with it's promise of standardization I was thrilled. However, now I more overwhelmed with my customers audits adn endless surveys - which ask the same questions as are in the ISO standards but requrei individual answering, special process auditing bodies (NADCAP), requirements from my custoemrs to personally visist and audit each of my suppliers each year (and they must be ISO registered and NADCAP certified if they perform special processes), then some of my custoemrs wan tot audit my suppliers and I must go with them...it never ends. If ISO is so wonderful, why am I subjected to the above requriements? because my customers put zero faith in ISO.

I would have a strong quality management system and I would control my supplier's performance, but I woudl never register my QMS with a 3rd party. I woudl never enter an industry where I would have to do that...and I woudl be afraid of losing my job in quality...I much prefer sepdnign my time on actual quality and yield improvements tahn on trying to comply with some arcane interpretation of a standard...

I voted "No" for the following reasons:

1. There are too many "registered" companies that have a piece of paper to attest to their ISO efforts, but their products and service still lack any true quality influence.

2. There are many quality conscience companies out there that are the top dogs in their field and have never given second thought to seeking registration (they don't need the reassurance) - Toyota, Knordstrom's, G.L. Gore to name a few.

3. I would rather have my customer's sing my praises, instead of relying on a "third-party".

I voted YES because, If I spend my own money,
I will focus on employee development and empowerment,
I will design the system with a team that actually perform the job,
I will ensure that the every process, activity,task of designed system is value added to Customer and business,
I will enforce strict adherence to the designed system,
I will be willing to adapt and accept changes in an objective manner and
I will ensure continual improvement of the process effectiveness as a way of life.
In other words, If did all the above, Iam going to get the return on what I spent for ISO 9001 registration. :yes:
Govind.

With all respect Sal, your post indicates that those who are registered comply and those that are not registered "pretend to comply". I suggest this is certainly not the case and would go so far as to argue that there are probably just as many pretenders in the certified ranks as in the non-certified. The QMS is what makes a company good or bad in the terms you describe, not the registration.

I strongly disagree with your comments re: compliant/non compliant. A non compliant company is perfectly capable of delivering a better product than a compliant one. That is all in the perception of the customer, not in the meeting of a standard. Non-compliant companies are no more likely to disregard the needs of an internal customer. Again, the certification process doesn't guarantee there is no risk of anyone losing their life (very extreme, but I guess it is a reality).

No one is arguing that company philosophy and commitment to a good quality management system create good business practice. I think we all agree they do. If it were the certification that ensured success, you could theroretically remove the management system and company philosophy and still have success. You can't do that.

The determination of compliance is done by the same person who gets paid for the certification. If this isn't serving two masters, I don't know what is. If a registrar has a client with 10 plants, do you honestly think that client will be found to be non-compliant and put on probation? Sure, line up the registrars who will loudly proclaim "FOUL". They are all above reproach. So are all their auditors who might feel a slight pressure to maintain their boss' clients and not suspend any. Point is, I don't think a certificate will ever guarantee the Utopia you describe. Once again it comes to the bottom line - money.

I suggest the only monitor of a company's quality system is their customer. Paper means nothing. If the customer is happy with the supplier, it can be argued they have the best system for their company. The guy down the street with the certificate can scream all he likes but bottom line is the customer uses the supplier who best meets their needs.

Maybe I am old fashioned on this but that's my opinion.

Dave

Hello Dave,
Once again please excuse me for not posting my reply yesterday. I appreciate your comments and I don’t think that your opinion on this thread is old fashioned, on the contrary it is very valid indeed.
Not to repeat but I did state in my second post that, any system is as good as what the resources make it to be.
Yes I agree with you money is the bottom line and will always remain so. However, if registrars are not doing their job properly and getting away with it, then it is the system regulating the registrars that has to be addressed and not the certificate.
Yes I agree no certificate guarantees Utopia, but the process in achieving the certificate and holding to it, gets us that little bit nearer.

I voted YES because, If I spend my own money,
I will focus on employee development and empowerment,
I will design the system with a team that actually perform the job,
I will ensure that the every process, activity,task of designed system is value added to Customer and business,
I will enforce strict adherence to the designed system,
I will be willing to adapt and accept changes in an objective manner and
I will ensure continual improvement of the process effectiveness as a way of life.
In other words, If did all the above, Iam going to get the return on what I spent for ISO 9001 registration. :yes:
Govind.

Govind - I understand completely the wonderful things that can be developed in your company through a good QMS. The list you posted is an example of what every good company should do to get return on your investment spent on the quality system. Problem is, not one of those things is a result of the registration of the system. They can all be accomplished by you and with no piece of paper from a 3rd party. Let's assume you did accomplish all the things on your list and now are faced with the question of spending thousands for a 3rd party to come in and give you a certificate that says you are compliant. Would you spend thousands of your own dollars just to get the certificate?

The question is not would you have a good quality system complying with the requirements of ISO - it is - would you spend your own money to REGISTER the QMS. So far, there are very few compelling arguments to say yes other than those FORCED to by customers and those willing to pay for a marketing advantage - both = bottom line $$$$$$$.

Dave

In total agreement with Dave Scott, I can see in this entire thread that all of us are on the same page when it comes to having an effective Business (Quality) Management System - that aligns (to a greater or lesser degree) to ISO-9000. To borrow a phrase from "Cool Hand Luke", "What we have here is a failure to communicate".

What (I believe) J. Oliphant's original question was, is there a benefit to the singular act of registering to an ISO standard?

In other words, If two identical companies have the same ISO compliant QMS*, is there an advantage if one of them also has the certificate hanging on the wall (an advantage that overcomes the cost of registration)?

*NOTE: This is assuming there is not customer requirement for registration.

Well, this would depend on one thing, who owns the company. I'm assuming that if I'm spending my own money, then I also own the company, so I'd then vote yes. I look at it this way, I own the company, I would want a good business system in place, one that is fully supported by me. I also would want to position my company to be able to quote on new work with new customers who are requiring ISO certification.

Now, if I don't own the company, then I'd vote no. In my experience, our ISO program is only supported by top management for the 2 weeks prior to an audit. The rest of the year, nobody gives a rat's fanny about it, other than to show off a certificate to a potential new customer.

JMHO
Jonell

I own my company. We were stuggling with this question for quite some time. We are in products and projects software business with a certain domain expertise. Right now there is no customer requirement to be certified. Neither do we see any 'marketing' advantage in getting certified. No one has ever asked us if we have any QMS in place or if we are certified or if inmates are running the asylum!

If it were a purely projects software business (with no paticular domain expertise - have specs will code), I think it's just possible that a certificate would come in handy - just to assure the potential client that we have gone through the grind (FWIW) of getting some sort of a system in place and that a third party totally un-connected with our business has found it fit to comply with some laid down standard. We do see companies boasting of ISO/CMM certifications. The $$ you spend must bring in more business- it's seen as investment (marketing expenses, if you like).

I voted 'No'. I don't think we will go for certification unless we are forced to do so. I do agree with what Dave and Rob have said above. We are therefore trying to build an effective QMS in our company and we are taking ISO manual as a basic guideline. Ultimately, for a growing organization, we want to buid a QMS that goes beyond the requirements of ISO standard.

Long way to go...

Govind - I understand completely the wonderful things that can be developed in your company through a good QMS. The list you posted is an example of what every good company should do to get return on your investment spent on the quality system. Problem is, not one of those things is a result of the registration of the system. They can all be accomplished by you and with no piece of paper from a 3rd party. Let's assume you did accomplish all the things on your list and now are faced with the question of spending thousands for a 3rd party to come in and give you a certificate that says you are compliant. Would you spend thousands of your own dollars just to get the certificate?

Dave

Dave:

I agree that it is POSSIBLE to achieve great things without certification. But, during the day-to-day operation of an organization, the question becomes "do we have the institutional discipline necessary to maintain, work within, and continue to develop that system?"

IMO, it is indeed very possible to be certified and make junk. It is also possible to not be certified and perform superbly. What, then, is the difference? Simply the way that the company is managed. If there are not procedures (written or unwritten) and processes that are designed and managed in a manner that makes quality happen, it is not very likely that quality will happen. Certification, and the threat of losing it or having it suspended, may give many organizations (and the people within) the added incentive to keep quality issues front and center. I think we all know, and many have seen, what happens when quality is relegated to a lesser role.

Like many other things we discuss within this great device we call the Cove, registration is but another tool in our quality toolbox. How it is used, and how effective it is, depends on its application, the support of others, and the skill of the craftsman.

Again, only my opinion.

Craig H.

I voted no for the same reasons. The actual registration buys you nothing except in those industries that "require" it to do business as a Prime.

II used to work in teh semiconductor industry in a high reliability segment in the early 80s. I was overwhelmed wiht the various customer's and governmant agency audits and requirements, so when ISO 9000 came along with it's promise of standardization I was thrilled. However, now I more overwhelmed with my customers audits adn endless surveys - which ask the same questions as are in the ISO standards but requrei individual answering, special process auditing bodies (NADCAP), requirements from my custoemrs to personally visist and audit each of my suppliers each year (and they must be ISO registered and NADCAP certified if they perform special processes), then some of my custoemrs wan tot audit my suppliers and I must go with them...it never ends. If ISO is so wonderful, why am I subjected to the above requriements? because my customers put zero faith in ISO.

I would have a strong quality management system and I would control my supplier's performance, but I woudl never register my QMS with a 3rd party. I woudl never enter an industry where I would have to do that...and I woudl be afraid of losing my job in quality...I much prefer sepdnign my time on actual quality and yield improvements tahn on trying to comply with some arcane interpretation of a standard...


I like this comment. It paints a unique point of view. IF the ISO badge were really believed to be a rigorous process, I believe they would be little or no supplier audits. But many of us I think realize that ISO is a game that can be won even without neccessarily a rigorous enlightened QA system. So far the total is 2/3 would not spend the $$$ (although admittedly not for the same reason), and with many of the same QA people conducting supplier audits-- perhaps ISO has not delivered.

Steve Prevette can take heart, most of us aren't part of the hoopla.

Can ISO be 'fixed' or 'toughened'? their's a lot of registrars auditors out there. They always seemed pretty bright to me. But Maybe we (the customers) just need to face down our suppliers and cause a little geniune fear to feel that own interests as buyers have really been represented.

I can't tell you how often I wanted to sick CAR, on any number of awful long distance companies. :D
Jay

My vote for "no" only encompasses the fact that we are 2 person firm that adheres to 9000-2000 and TS "suggestions" but will not be seeking any type of registration until the financials dictate they will be reruired.

Just from a small guy,

Al...

Govind - I understand completely the wonderful things that can be developed in your company through a good QMS. The list you posted is an example of what every good company should do to get return on your investment spent on the quality system. Problem is, not one of those things is a result of the registration of the system. They can all be accomplished by you and with no piece of paper from a 3rd party. Let's assume you did accomplish all the things on your list and now are faced with the question of spending thousands for a 3rd party to come in and give you a certificate that says you are compliant. Would you spend thousands of your own dollars just to get the certificate?

The question is not would you have a good quality system complying with the requirements of ISO - it is - would you spend your own money to REGISTER the QMS. So far, there are very few compelling arguments to say yes other than those FORCED to by customers and those willing to pay for a marketing advantage - both = bottom line $$$$$$$.

Dave

Dave,
In my opinion Cost involved in 3rd party registration, surveillance audit is a small portion of the overall organization's cost involved in establishing, implementing and maintaining the ISO9001 QMS. Normally we don't measure our internal maintenance costs. But the cost incurred for registration and surveillance audit is visible.This is probably one of the reason, we have a perception that cost of ISO is nothing but cost involved in registration.

For Contractual, marketing reasons, registration is mandatory these days.
But we can also get financial returns from the registration cost.
If the auditors from Registration body focus on effectiveness of the process rather than mere compliance, the audit can be more value added and the organization can get returns for engaging them as registrars.

You have valid argument in this topic.
But,I took all these into consideration when I replied.
Govind.

Hi everybody

I am a new entrant at the Cove.

I was wondering why Toyota doesn't require ISO certification and yet ends up streets ahead of its closest competitors !! Surely , there must be a solution to this necessary evil called ISO 9000 . Every organization must discover for itself how to circumvent this evil without adverse effects .

Gourishankar , CQMgr.


Dave,
In my opinion Cost involved in 3rd party registration, surveillance audit is a small portion of the overall organization's cost involved in establishing, implementing and maintaining the ISO9001 QMS. Normally we don't measure our internal maintenance costs. But the cost incurred for registration and surveillance audit is visible.This is probably one of the reason, we have a perception that cost of ISO is nothing but cost involved in registration.

For Contractual, marketing reasons, registration is mandatory these days.
But we can also get financial returns from the registration cost.
If the auditors from Registration body focus on effectiveness of the process rather than mere compliance, the audit can be more value added and the organization can get returns for engaging them as registrars.

You have valid argument in this topic.
But,I took all these into consideration when I replied.
Govind.

I voted no, but maybe I am not thinking along the same lines as you are. If I had my own business it would not be anything that required any kind of certification. Now, if the poll asked if I would implement a quality system, you betcha!

My thoughts exactly. (but I didn't vote) If I felt that there was a good business advantage for registration, then I would of course become registered. I have a couple of clients that have paid me to assist them in implementing a system, but at this time have no plans for registration.

Another reason for registration, and perhaps the only reason I would become registered without a business need, is third-party registration will have a tendency to keep me from allowing the system to atrophy. I am not a very disciplined person, and I doubt I would keep it up without out someone nagging me to do so.

Hi everybody
I am a new entrant at the Cove.
I was wondering why Toyota doesn't require ISO certification and yet ends up streets ahead of its closest competitors !! Surely , there must be a solution to this necessary evil called ISO 9000 . Every organization must discover for itself how to circumvent this evil without adverse effects .
Gourishankar , CQMgr.

Welcome to the Cove,

IMO, Toyota does not need ISO certification because everyone knows that their system is as good as, if not better than, 9K2K. They have a product that they have sold on their reputation as leaders in quality control and this is their assurance to their customers. I think they started 5S (and the Seven types of waste) and a few more well known programs.

Greg B

I would vote "NO". I do not think the registration is a value added thing. The auditor generally know less than me either about the company's process improving or the QMS understanding. If I own a company, I could maintain a more effective QMS than those just certified officially. But it is just "if", Now the company I am workong at spent a lot of money for the certification. As the QC manager, I also spent a lot of time to prepare for it.

I would vote "NO". I do not think the registration is a value added thing. The auditor generally know less than me either about the company's process improving or the QMS understanding. If I own a company, I could maintain a more effective QMS than those just certified officially. But it is just "if", Now the company I am workong at spent a lot of money for the certification. As the QC manager, I also spent a lot of time to prepare for it.
Welcome to the cove, baubin. This is a well thought out answer. I especially like the comment that you would 'maintain a more effective QMS'. I think a lot of us here in the cove would like to improve on the standard and probably far surpass its requirements in our systems.

Greg B

I voted yes. I guess if I didn't I would kind of be a hypocrite. However, I am working with one company who started out just wanting help implementing a quality system. We're basing it on ISO, in case they ever go for registration. I would also ensure I got a registrar that did help. I've seen both at my clients. Some are happy to have one that 'will pass everyone.' However, others would be very insulted by that type of auditor. I would want a real good audit if it were my own $.

I voted yes. I guess if I didn't I would kind of be a hypocrite.

I don't think it would make you a hypocrite if you said otherwise. I guess it depends on this...assuming you worked for a company that was ISO 9001 registered, do you agree with their reasons for going for it? Was it worth being registered? Do the benefits of your Organization's registration outweigh the negatives?

However, I am working with one company who started out just wanting help implementing a quality system. We're basing it on ISO, in case they ever go for registration.

So what, in your opinion, is more important? Having the system in place or having the piece of paper that says you have a system in place? (how's that for opening a can of worms....we need an icon for that!)

I would also ensure I got a registrar that did help. I've seen both at my clients. Some are happy to have one that 'will pass everyone.' However, others would be very insulted by that type of auditor. I would want a real good audit if it were my own $.

How do you ensure that you get such a Registrar? I mean, we all want that...our defintion of "help" varies from company to company, though. But how do you ensure you are getting a Registrar that meets your requirements? How do you ensure you have an effective and productive audit? Here in the Cove we have often seen people complaining about the inconsistency amongst Registrars and External Auditors....and their results which can sometimes make us truly question the benefits of ISO 9001. Gah, I'm becoming jaded and cynical in my old age. :D

Like this?
So what, in your opinion, is more important? Having the system in place or having the piece of paper that says you have a system in place? (how's that for opening a can of worms....we need an icon for that!)

Like this?

Hey! This isn't the fishing thread! :whip:

Although we tend to go "fishing" a lot in threads, don't we? So, I guess it is okay. (now you see why I'm not a moderator) :(

Nope, not with my $$$....i rather hire a good consultant than go through the registration and am sure you will get more benefits.

Since I am a business owner, I made the decision many years ago when registration to BS 5750 appeared (5750 was the precursor text to the 1st edition of ISO 9000) not to pursue registration as I could not see what value it added to my services that would benefit my clients or myself. My view is unchanged. Indeed with the rampant poor quality of assessment activity, I am even more sure my decision is correct today than ever was the case. And that is a shame for I hold my views with a not inconsiderable level of regret as "quality" and "auditing" have been my professional life. Since writing the first edition of my book, "Management Audits" back in 1978, I have advocated an independent assessment service for the benefit of business. That view has appeared in each subsequent edition and elsewhere. But, as I am intolerant of poor auditing and as the potential customer of such services, I will review my policy only when I am convinced substantial improvements are made in the registration industry. With that in mind, I am hopeful the changing rules requiring registrars etc to be assessed for actual on-the-job competence will help: they have my fullest backing. Those ideas are certainly NOT new as I have undertaken such assessments since the mid-1970s (as have others). But, one hopes the methods are efficacious and rigorous to the extent that "auditors" cannot get around them.

So to answer the question: being the business owner, registration would be paid out of my pocket and I therefore am unwilling to pay for it.

I don't even like spending somebody else's money on it!

I surely would not spend my own!

Carl-

I don't even like spending somebody else's money on it!

I surely would not spend my own!

Carl-
Same here - I voted no.

The third option on the poll is missing

It depends on what I get for it

I agree with quite a bit of what has been said above but the question I would ask myself (and the three directors in my company asked ourselves the other day)

What is in it for us
What will it cost (money / time )


I don't spend money if there is no benefit and I am sufficiently confident in my own ability that a third party auditor would only point out failings in my systems that I am already aware of.

If however I thought I could get extra benefit and more customers from it then yes I would go for it out of my own money.

from the replies, i can summarize....

1. we will not spend our money to register iso 9001 (this not mean we won't adopt iso9001 QMS)
2. iso9001 registration is a marketing ploy, more than a seal of approval....(eg customer demand, new customers, etc)

well, i agree wholeheartedly with the poll results..

It depends, but 20-20 hindsight would make me vote yes, and here is why:

If two years ago, if instead of contracting to work full-time as an engineer and later becoming the Management Representative responsible for implementing ISO 9001:2000 from scratch, I would had ‘bought’ this company, I would definitely have spent my money. Why? Because registration proved to be ‘the road’ to get a proper QMS implemented, and everyone committed to doing so. It worked, and it is continuing to work. = [Yes]

However – 1, if it had been my company from the beginning, I know that it would have had the same or very similar QMS as prescribed by ISO 9001:2000, so from this aspect I would not spend my money for registration. = [No]

However – 2, we have had a number of long sought customers finally take the plunge and start doing business with us; and yes, registration was the catalyst. Even if it had been my company from the beginning and had an effective QMS that could meet anyone’s scrutiny, getting additional customers would definitely be worthwhile. = [Yes]

Hence, 2 [Yes] and 1 [No] = Yes

My 2¢,

Alex

My guess is most of the folks who voted "no" would in actuality change to "yes" if major/critical customers demanded registration. It would then become just another business expense -- assuming the registration process did nothing to actually improve your business except allow you to do business with certain customers.

We had critical/major customers demanding that we be ISO registered in order to do business with them. Those same customers are now not even among our top 20% - they're buying overseas now. Hence the need for our shift into new market segments and new product lines - while still maintaining our share of our current markets. The more diverse we are, the less one or two customers can hurt us.

My vote is still no.

I think given a CHOICE, the poll reults stand.

If customers demand, it becomes a business decision.

If the registration costs approach or exceed the profit you will make from the customer(s), the choice no longer becomes a choice, it becomes a cost of doing business.

Carl-

I think given a CHOICE, the poll reults stand.

If customers demand, it becomes a business decision.

If the registration costs approach or exceed the profit you will make from the customer(s), the choice no longer becomes a choice, it becomes a cost of doing business.

Carl-

Of course some customers demand one's company complies with ISO 9000 while others demand one's company is registered to ISO 9000. There is an important difference.

Keep this thought firmly in mind. There are a lot of suppliers of goods and services in the world who are neither registered nor compliant with ISO9k2k who continue in business because they have customers who only demand good products and services at good prices.

Folks who gravitate to Forums like the Cove represent only a small slice of the universe of producers and consumers.

Sadly, in the same vein, we could probably poll ALL 80 or 90,000 ASQ members and find a substantial number who have no clue who Deming, Crosby, and Juran are and have never heard of, let alone witnessed or participated in a Red Bead experiment.

The bottom line is: those of us who are most savvy about ISO9k2k are most likely to have doubts about the value of registration versus compliance when market does not demand registration.

Folks with no experience with a non-system versus a system which follows the general principles of ISO9k2k won't understand the emotions inherent in the debate.

Heck. We have folks visiting here in the Cove who have never known a life without color TV who would be completely stunned to learn entire towns used to come to a halt when the Amos & Andy show was on the radio. My grandfather's movie theater scheduled films around the Amos & Andy show time and would pipe the radio program into the theater. The alternate was to shut down completely because folks simply wouldn't come otherwise.

The point is "if you haven't experienced chaos without a Standardized Quality system, you can't truly appreciate an operation with a Standard system." Folks who know only a registered system complain about minor aspects of nitpicking auditors because they never experienced a truly chaotic system with zero documentation and zero thinking about improving processes. These were operations with little or no regard for safety and well being of employees, little or no regard for the environment, and absolutely no tolerance for any input by a customer, who had only one option (buy or don't buy.)

Now that we are "enlightened," as customers, we recognize the importance of dealing with organized, efficient suppliers because it is in our own self interest to ensure a steady stream of products and services with a consistent expectation of uniformity. Some customers feel they need a "police force" to ensure stability to the supply chain and so the concept of 3rd party inspectors was born. Like it or not, the corporate memories of these customers goes back to the time of chaos and they don't want to return.

Interesting frame of reference because if you played Amos and Andy nowadays at all, you would likely be shut down by someone who considered it offensive.

That being said, I think all cultures throughout time respected the power and importance of having a structured approach to "making" things, whether it be a pyramid, interchangeable parts for firearms or silicon chips.

Carl-

Carl. I love you like a brother, but you are in error. structured approach to "making" things is relatively new. Pyramids were each one-of-a-kind. The methods couldn't have been too structured if the technique died out with the builders and is only recently "reverse engineered." Guns were all hand made, from scratch, no interchangeability, until relatively recently. Certainly, interchangeability came long after firearms were invented. Same thing with shoes, dresses, nails, lumber, needles, thread, cloth, etc. all which enjoyed a long history before a "structured" approach entered into their production.

With a little effort, I'm sure you can add to the list.

Wes,

You are of course correct. True structured manufacturing systems are a recent development.

But I bet those Pharohs had a system to cut the stones relatively uniform.

I was referring to Eli Whitney making interchangeable parts about 1798 for the military. often heralded as the precursor to production line mentality.

I never said they were good at it, just that they appreciated the concept.

Carl-

Sadly, in the same vein, we could probably poll ALL 80 or 90,000 ASQ members and find a substantial number who have no clue who Deming, Crosby, and Juran are ..

I have all their albums, but I liked them best when Neil Young was still in the group.

Hahaha!

That's pretty good!

Bing was quite a crooner also!

Carl-

Wes,

You are of course correct. True structured manufacturing systems are a recent development.

But I bet those Pharohs had a system to cut the stones relatively uniform.

I was referring to Eli Whitney making interchangeable parts about 1798 for the military. often heralded as the precursor to production line mentality.

I never said they were good at it, just that they appreciated the concept.

Carl-
On this you are correct. As a Mason, I should have been more forebearing. Take a look at this site for an interesting confirmation.
http://www.ncsli.org/misc/cubit.cfm

I'd spend my own $$$ in a heartbeat to be ISO 9001 compliant and FULLY implemented.

I would NOT spend my own $$$ for registration UNTIL I had total buy-in from everyone in the company.

Trying to achieve total buy-in after the aircraft has left the ground calls for a lot of barnstorming and wing walking in mid-flight.

I agree with Muleskinner. In fact, I have spent my own personal money to drive my current employer toward ISO 13485. It wasn't until it was required to do business in Canada, that they got on board.

However, the expectations had risen due to the reduced levels of defects and postivie outcomes from external audits.

How dare someone ask such a general open ended question! (I am in jest of course). Every business is in a unique situation to where ISO would be required or not required. We are a 9K2K registered company. We have subsidiaries of our company that are not registered, they do just fine. Now if the debate comes back to does the paper add value, isn't that in the eye of the beer holder? I mean beholder? I guess I dislike the attitude that using ISO for sales and marketing purposes or to meet customer contractural demands is wrong. WEMAP - whatever makes a profit...Do we dare to delve into an area that implies businesses have some ideologically higher moral obligation other than to making a profit? Which seems to be lurking behind door number 1. :truce:

Why not register your ISO 9001 ??
Is the same theory about studying .. Since you put so much effort to get your degree program and then dun take the exam paper?

Isn't a waste of effort?? Well this also help ur organsation to gauge their capability certification..... :o

Jeremy,

What if taking the exam costed Thousands of dollars and you did not need a degree to get the job?

You would still have studied and would still have learned, right?

ALSO

What if the exam did not represent whether you actually learned anything or not? Is it useful?

A QMS based on ISO can be a very good tool. The registration itself is worth very little in my estimation. You could put the registration money to much better use.

Regards,

Ccarl-

Hi,
this is my first time and English is not my first language so pls exuse any mistakes.
I found this forum very interesting and informative and realized that problems with ISO9001 implementation and external auditing are international so before I answer the question pls find below some comments.
Shortly about myself. Since 2,5 years I have been working as a consultant and additionally as an independent IRCA registered ISO9001:2000 lead auditor for one of the leading international certification companies. I have already audited on their behalf more then 200 various companies from very small (few employees) to big international companies situated in my country. And the
conclusion: there is something wrong with ISO9001 implementation. Very often when auditing I have a feeling that I audit virtual quality management system where main purpose of so called ISO documentation is to produce objective evidence for external auditors. Smaller the company bigger the virtuality. The good news is that the real qms is usually much better then officially presented and often easily complies with ISO requirements.
There are two systems, in one there are: quality policy, quality objectives, corrective and preventive actions, management review and in another one there are: company mission, strategy and goals, business plans, company meetings, management decisions etc. For many (unhappily even auditors) quality policy or objectives is not a quality policy or objective until it is under a big QUALITY POLICY or QUALITY OBJECTIVE name. In reality I often find the situation where under Quality Objective name there are no real quality objectives but I can often find them documented under different name in other documents like business plans. The certification company I work for tell us that there is no requirement to have a quality policy under quality policy name. We have to look for it for instance in documented vision, mission or values and accept if declarations are in compliance with the standard, similarly I shall look for quality objectives in documented business plan etc.
Many times I noticed that you are looking at the forum for the solutions how to proof that horse is a horse. I realized that for many auditiors horse is not a horse until it has a big sticker HORSE and the best if it is signed by President of the Company. The ISO9000 quality language is overused and misunderstood.
Why it is like this?. I still do not finally know but I think this is a compilation of three factors: company, consultant and external auditor.
Companies when deciding to implement ISO9001 do not have enough knowledge anad experience to argue with consultants and external auditors so they accept almost everything.
Consultants main goal is that the company passes certification audit so when advising they force the company to include in their documentation all consultant’s bad experience with bed auditors to avoid any arguing during the audit.
Auditors are not open-minded enough as it is required by ISO190011 7.2.b or IRCA (visit of IRCA webside may be interesting) and very often they treat their own opinions as audit criteria.
All this is a way to kill ISO9001 certification as companies do not see any value in it.
But it may have a big value as an external auditor has a unique possibility to see many organizations and qms implementations and his experience and objective evaluation of company qms and even some kind of suggestions may be very useful unless his audit is concentrated on 4.2 of ISO standard only.
My advise for companies. Do not choose certification company on cost basis only. Ask them what they can offer to you except certificate itself. Ask them if they have any additional requirements to the standard and what are their interpretations of standard clauses. Choose one which suits you company business the best. And change to another one when you are not satisfied. Do not accept two qms systems in your company.
Proper value added auditing and certification companies approach is a way for ISO9001 certification to survive.
So my answer to the question is YES but it will be a long evaluation process before I choose a certification company. Maciek

Excellent, EXCELLENT post :applause:

Welcome to the Cove, malicove. :bigwave:

As well I say, excellent 1st post. You've summarized the ISO conundrum very well.

I will add though, that if a company has people internally that fully understand (i.e. are as knowledgeable and experienced as any ISO auditor) real quality management systems , coupled with a customer requirement for certification, then you might find the cheapest route/registrar for getting the paper on the wall. Consider them a necessary nuisance, all the while developing, maintaining, and improving the business systems in ways you know will be value added.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing more from you.

Yes, Welcome to the Cove, malicove. Your post is most excellent. :agree1: You hit the nail squarely and drove it home.

Many times I noticed that you are looking at the forum for the solutions how to proof that horse is a horse. I realized that for many auditiors horse is not a horse until it has a big sticker HORSE and the best if it is signed by President of the Company.
Excellent!:applause: Welcome! Of course, the problem is that in most companies there are more horse's arses than there are horses:lol: .

Excellent post, I would agree!

I would add, I do not want my registrar giving me "value added" services!

That does not mean they are stupid or do not have some good ideas, it just is not what I hired them for.

I hire them to audit me to the ISO9001 standard and point out any areas that do not meet the standard.

If I want advice on how to run my business, I will hire a consultant, and it will probably be a bit cheaper than the $$$ per day plus expenses my registrar charges.

The registration process is already subjective enough.

Companies need to keep in mind (and remind their registrar) that we are the CUSTOMER! Yes, we need to develop a partnership with them, but when it comes right down to it, they work for us.

Carl-

Hi,
this is my first time and English is not my first language so pls exuse any mistakes.
. . .

Why it is like this?. I still do not finally know but I think this is a compilation of three factors: company, consultant and external auditor.
Companies when deciding to implement ISO9001 do not have enough knowledge anad experience to argue with consultants and external auditors so they accept almost everything.
Consultants main goal is that the company passes certification audit so when advising they force the company to include in their documentation all consultant’s bad experience with bed auditors to avoid any arguing during the audit.
Auditors are not open-minded enough as it is required by ISO190011 7.2.b or IRCA (visit of IRCA webside may be interesting) and very often they treat their own opinions as audit criteria.
All this is a way to kill ISO9001 certification as companies do not see any value in it.
But it may have a big value as an external auditor has a unique possibility to see many organizations and qms implementations and his experience and objective evaluation of company qms and even some kind of suggestions may be very useful unless his audit is concentrated on 4.2 of ISO standard only.
My advise for companies. Do not choose certification company on cost basis only. Ask them what they can offer to you except certificate itself. Ask them if they have any additional requirements to the standard and what are their interpretations of standard clauses. Choose one which suits you company business the best. And change to another one when you are not satisfied. Do not accept two qms systems in your company.
Proper value added auditing and certification companies approach is a way for ISO9001 certification to survive.
So my answer to the question is YES but it will be a long evaluation process before I choose a certification company. Maciek
Congratulations on your first post!:applause: Lots of good points!
Lots of good stuff and great insight into the psychology of many organizations which strive for Registration to a Standard.

So, now that you've broken the ice and found we don't bite, I expect to see more of your posts in the future.

I might quibble with "value-added auditing." I prefer to spend the extra time and money to develop an internal auditing team to provide "value-added" auditing kept strictly in-house.

Like Carl, I am leery of an auditor who offers too many suggestions for my business. Here's just one reason: If the auditor is giving me the benefit of his experience viewing processes of other companies, then he may be giving away my competitive edge when he goes to another company and shares his experiences at MY company, regardless if he ever mentions the name of my company.

Here's just one reason: If the auditor is giving me the benefit of his experience viewing processes of other companies, then he may be giving away my competitive edge when he goes to another company and shares his experiences at MY company, regardless if he ever mentions the name of my company.
I am surprised with this comment. What is this website all about? People sharing their experiences and advice, for the betterment of people and organizations. If you could show me one post in which proprietary information was disclosed, to the detriment of an organization, I would be surprised. You are one of the premier contributors here, Wes. Do you think that the advice you have been providing here is being usurped from your previous employers?

There is a big difference between providing insightful feedback to an organization, as part of an audit and (unlawfully) break confidentiality agreements and disseminate proprietary know how and intellectual property.

During an audit I did earlier this year, I told an organization that, even though many aspects of their management system was world class level, their corrective action process was average, at best. They asked me to put them in touch with an organization they could communicate with and understand how a high performing corrective action process could work. So I did. And they were very appreciative.

In my opinion, auditors can point out many opportunities for improvement to organizations, without crossing the "consulting line" and without doing anything unethical. But, like always, that is just my opinion.

I am surprised with this comment. What is this website all about? People sharing their experiences and advice, for the betterment of people and organizations. If you could show me one post in which proprietary information was disclosed, to the detriment of an organization, I would be surprised. You are one of the premier contributors here, Wes. Do you think that the advice you have been providing here is being usurped from your previous employers?

There is a big difference between providing insightful feedback to an organization, as part of an audit and (unlawfully) break confidentiality agreements and disseminate proprietary know how and intellectual property.

During an audit I did earlier this year, I told an organization that, even though many aspects of their management system was world class level, their corrective action process was average, at best. They asked me to put them in touch with an organization they could communicate with and understand how a high performing corrective action process could work. So I did. And they were very appreciative.

In my opinion, auditors can point out many opportunities for improvement to organizations, without crossing the "consulting line" and without doing anything unethical. But, like always, that is just my opinion.
I stand by my original statement.
I give plenty of data today that I would not have given ten years ago because then the data represented a competitive edge my company enjoyed over MY competitors. I no longer own a manufacturing company, hence I feel free to give away "secrets" I kept to myself for many years.

I do not give any of the competitive secrets from my stint as the CFO and Quality Director of an aerospace manufacturer because that organization is still in business. I am not under "pressure to perform" a value-added audit and therefore I can easily refrain from giving up secrets from one client to another client.

I agree most auditors are highly ethical people, but I do know some who are neither ethical nor particularly intelligent enough to have creative ideas of their own. Those are precisely the kind of people I used to "charm and cajole" when I was an investment banker in a continual process of trying to gain nonpublic information about target companies and their competitors that would give me a competitive edge against my own competitors in the investment banking business.

Since I spent a large part of my adult life gathering such information, I know how easily some people can be pressured or coerced to give up information. The ploys range from offering personal profit to "phony praise" for how smart they were to spot such useful tidbits of information. Many of my competitors ran employment agencies for the express purpose of pumping information out of job candidates. It is surprising how much information a skilled interviewer can assemble from talking to just two or three people in various departments throughout an organization when they are led to believe they are leading candidates for lucrative positions at another organization.

It is a rare candidate who is wary of the true motives of a person offering a lucrative job, especially when the interviewer is an attractive young person who asks seemingly legitimate questions with dialog like this,
"I think you would be a really good candidate for this position, but I have to be able to convince them you've been instrumental in some key improvement at your present company."

"Did you do anything like that?"

"Yeah. Well lots of guys claim they were instrumental, but I need details to convince them you really were one of the leaders and not just some drone who lucked into being part of the team. What was the key factor that made this initiative successful? How was it better than what you had before? What were some of the pitfalls you encountered and overcame? How did you overcome them? Just how successful was this? You could say, for instance, it resulted in a 100% increase in profit, but that would be meaningless if the original profit were only a few thousand dollars. I need some concrete facts to convince them you are the guy for this job!"

Heck! I once got a lot of information just by sitting in a saloon half a block down the street from a company and losing money at pool to guys wearing company logo shirts under the pretext I was looking to change jobs. I had guys competing to tell details of how things worked and how much product they were shipping (or screwing up.) Usually, the scenario was kind of "can you top this?"

Bottom line: I am concerned about ethical behavior today because I have such intimate knowledge of the ease with which folks can be seduced to cross the line.

In my opinion, auditors can point out many opportunities for improvement to organizations, without crossing the "consulting line" and without doing anything unethical.
Nothing in your post served to refute Sidney's basic premise. If you have an auditor who is a "blabber" you'll know it early on in the process and you can act accordingly. There's a big difference between gossiping about what one has seen in other companies and pointing out opportunities that should represent common knowledge. If an auditor can't distinguish between proprietary information and public domain, he has no business being an auditor.

Hi,
thanks for your comments they are very encouraging but sets a crossbar high for me (hope not too high).

The main reason of my thread was to support ISO9001 future. It is a good standard in my opinion and should not be treated as a technical standard and implemented on “to pass” basis only but as something which creates PDCA circles and value to the company (too big words?). So value added audit is a part of it.

Re value added audit.

If you need a certificate only you do not need any audit at all. Certificate can probably be bought. And even if you have to be audited you can buy so called “proved” ISO Documentation and insert the name of your company within it, however it will only create costs for your company: cost of certification and follow up audits and costs of your people preparing objective evidence for auditor (you can however choose the least productive employee to do this to keep the costs low). I have a feeling that a second detailed ISO9001 standard exists all over the world and everybody knows that preparing company and it’s documentation according to this ensure certification. Even auditors feel more comfortable when they see familiar solutions.

If my earlier thread created smallest value it means that external audits can do it, without my experience as an external auditor it would had never been written (difficult conditional sentence).

First obligation of the auditor is to confirm that company qms complies to ISO standard. My experience is that because ISO9001 is general and objective generally every more or less successful company now (almost) compiles but they are not aware of it. There are ISO9001 elements all over the company management system under different names so in the beginning they shall be identified, pointed out and documented if required. The problem is however that for many external auditors something does not exists unless it is named according to ISO9000 (which is obliviously not requirement of ISO9001). And often the result is that if already mentioned horse is defined in ISO9000 and company puts a big signed sticker HORSE on a donkey it passes the audit with “ears too long” observation only. I think that overuse of quality language is damaging. I know companies which named their “clever idea box”: “ISO9001 box” , nobody is throwing anything to it (except few denunciations).
So generally I do not think this is a problem to comply (at least virtually) with ISO9001 and pass the certification. The problem is how to implement ISO9001 so it can be used by the company for business improvement and competitiveness. The question shall be not how to pass an audit but what is the best solution for my company. We all agree that this forum shall not exist to provide answers how to pass certification audit only (even if some suggestions are really helpful) but how to improve qms.

External audit shall be used as one of the tools for business improvement especially that you have to pay for it (no one will pay more for your product because you are certified). Basic value is that your auditor is open-minded and experienced so he does not spoil your qms. Next he should sense virtuality of the system and point it out (usually the reason is wrong interpretation of the standard). And finally he shall suggest improvements and by this way spread good business practices (not technology) and decrease risks. He has a rare opportunity to observe how ideas work in reality in various environments.

Re ethic.
Ethic problem is not with auditors only. Note that this the first requirement for the auditor according to ISO190011 (second is open-mind!!). You have this problem with employees, managers etc. I do not think that somebody who would like to get information about other company will hire external auditor, there are better ways to do it. So if auditor reveals info about other companies this is not a matter of ethic but stupidity (if it is a correct English word for this) and stupid and close-minded auditors shall be eliminated (but no exterminated, give them a chance). Somebody in the company the best if he has Wes experience can evaluate auditor at the beginning of the audit and when he noticed that he reveals confidential information of other companies simply say him good-by and report to his principals. As mentioned earlier key to ISO9001 quality and existence is with the companies, they shall be demanding not docile.
By the way, I do not thing that revealing information that Motorola use SixSigma pose any threat to this organization. You can find a lot of info abut various companies in business and management magazines like HBR. Auditor shall have general management knowledge obviously not to advise but to sense, discover and point out areas for improvement, and PDCA circle applies to him.
Maciek
:thanx:

Maciek,

I can't argue with most of what you say, but if I hire you to give me a cert that says "Horse" and you spend time (that I am paying you for) on checking my Chicken coop, there's a problem.

As I said, If I need "value added" business advice, I will hire a consultant that specializes in it.

Wes,

I 100% agree with you. There is a BIG difference between talking about Quality in general on this forum, and having a Registrar auditor who usually concentrates in a given business sector looking into the details of your business. An if they are not looking into the details, how value added would it actually be? Confidentially agreement signed or not, that is a lot of trust to be putting in someone who is likely to be walking into your copmpetitors lobby in a few weeks.

It is my beleif that Registrars have consistently tried to push the idea that if you want registration, you have to play their game. Coercing companies to buy into "value added auditing" is just another ploy in the string justifications for their existence. As I said before, they should concentrate on making audits (and the standard) less subjective so the process will be of more benefit to everyone. All I ask is for you to do the job I hired you for in a reasonable time, no less, no more.



Carl-

Maciek,

I can't argue with most of what you say, but if I hire you to give me a cert that says "Horse" and you spend time (that I am paying you for) on checking my Chicken coop, there's a problem.

As I said, If I need "value added" business advice, I will hire a consultant that specializes in it.

Wes,

I 100% agree with you. There is a BIG difference between talking about Quality in general on this forum, and having a Registrar auditor who usually concentrates in a given business sector looking into the details of your business. An if they are not looking into the details, how value added would it actually be? Confidentially agreement signed or not, that is a lot of trust to be putting in someone who is likely to be walking into your copmpetitors lobby in a few weeks.

It is my beleif that Registrars have consistently tried to push the idea that if you want registration, you have to play their game. Coercing companies to buy into "value added auditing" is just another ploy in the string justifications for their existence. As I said before, they should concentrate on making audits (and the standard) less subjective so the process will be of more benefit to everyone. All I ask is for you to do the job I hired you for in a reasonable time, no less, no more.



Carl-
This has gone off on tangent. So-called "value-added" auditing by registrars is a different subject. What Sidney was referring to, and Wes disagreed with (I think) was the idea of an auditor making suggestions for improvement based on observations made during the audit. It has nothing to do with wandering out behind the barn when the auditor is supposed to be examining the livestock inside. Wes makes the broad assumption that if an auditor has a good suggestion, it might be a proprietary secret gleaned from a previous audit of a competing company, thus no one's secrets are safe if auditors are free to make suggestions. The fact is that there are some (many) companies out there for whom common knowledge is a foreign concept, and the suggestion that it might be a good idea to put the most-used raw materials nearest the production floor is not likely to be a threat to anyone.

Can't speak for Wes, but I was not off on a Tangent.

Value added services and lack of consistency in the standard and auditing thereof are the main reasons why I would not spend my own $ on ISO registration, which was the subject of the thread.

How another company does it has nothing to do with meeting the standard. There are a lot of "right" as well as a lot of "wrong" ways to do something. It is not the Auditors place to share anything outside of the elements of the standard.

Moving raw materials closer to the production floor may very well be the reason company A puts company B out of business, in any case, it has nothing to do with ISO 9001, so the Auditors should keep such "advice" to themselves.

Carl-

Following the horse analogy...

1.Your dead horse is a horse.

2.You have a horse (but I won't tell you that your horse is under a tree with 3 mountain lions ready to pounce on it since it is outside the scope of my attestation)

Following the horse analogy...

1.Your dead horse is a horse.

2.You have a horse (but I won't tell you that your horse is under a tree with 3 mountain lions ready to pounce on it since it is outside the scope of my attestation)

An auditor who was supposed to be looking at horses (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1756&e=1&u=/050710/ids_photos_en/r462482616.jpg)

As I re-examine my earlier comments, I detect my frustration with ANYONE, regular auditor or "value-added" auditor, coming in to a place of business, ostensibly on one mission (paid by the man hour), who casually shoots from the hip and says (by implication), "Oh by the way, although your operations meet the Standard I am paid to audit, I notice your business processes aren't up to industry benchmarks that I am aware of because I go into so many businesses and pay attention to what makes them profitable in addition to checking their adherence to the Standard. In fact, I am so knowledgeable about what makes a business more efficient and profitable that I can assess your business or any business as I casually pass from department to department and carry on my Standard audit in just a day or two on your premises. Also, you should know that if I didn't find any room for improvement, you overpaid for your audit because you didn't get any value added."

Does this view of mine mean NO auditor has the experience, skill, and ethics to spot potential opportunities for increased business efficiency as he goes through an audit? The ethics part means he can make a value judgment to avoid giving away another organization's hard won trade secrets. Even then, I would expect the opportunity for improvement in a non-Standard aspect of business to be recognized by a mere fluke during the short time an auditor is on the premises.

I know many wonderful, ethical accounting auditors from years of experience in dealing with financial matters of public and nonpublic companies. Every single one of my acquaintances agrees that a "Standard" audit of an organization would probably not catch fraud by a high ranking insider, nor would it pinpoint the subtle incompetencies which cause some organizations to fail. They all agree that detecting the fraud or incompetency requires a much deeper and more thorough analysis in a process known as "forensic accounting."

Perhaps I have become too cynical after exposure to so many major and minor frauds and incompetencies when looking at potential targets for my investment banking business. However experienced and cynical I may have been, however, I would never have been able to ferret out either fraud or pure incompetency within three days unless that was the ONLY thing I was looking for. With an entrenched system of incompetency, internal taboos constrain others in the organization to help hide the incompetency like some families help hide one member's alcoholism from the outsiders, making excuses for absences and minor car accidents. Fraud, by its very nature, is something hidden and secret from outsiders as well as most insiders.

Bottom line:
Let's agree the term "value added auditing" is merely a marketing ploy to set an auditing organization apart from its competitors to gain more business at a higher price. If an organization hires such an auditor and is willing to pay more, is that any different from the consumer who chooses to buy a brand name appliance at full retail from a flagship department store rather than at a discount from Best Buy?

I don't intend to belittle an auditor trying to push his company's marketing strategy, but that doesn't mean that I can't tell folks that the real difference between one audit and another doesn't hinge on the marketing strategy of the registrar, but on the experience and competence of the individual on-site auditor.

Let's agree the term "value added auditing" is merely a marketing ploy to set an auditing organization apart from its competitors to gain more business at a higher price.
I obviously can not agree with that. While I suspect it might be true for some of my competitors, I know this is not the case with the organization I work for. Which, by the way, celebrates 141 years of existence in 2005. We have a value proposition for the audits we conduct, which goes beyond simple verification of a management system against a checklist. We are fully aware that this goes against some traditional expectations of how audits should be conducted, but it is our position.

Sidney,

Interesting position.

So you don't charge for the time it takes for this added "value proposition"? or did your company decide that it was "value added" for their pocketbook as well?

I guess as long as you are clear on your position and the company signs a contract, everyone is on the same page.

I would tell them to take a hike, but my company has only been in business for about 50 + years, so I guess you could consider us young and brash.

If I want a registrars opinion on something other than ISO, I'll ask for it.

Carl-

Carl, Wes

QMS is almost everywhere in your company so auditor is very rare outside of the elements of the standards. We talk about good business practice not what other company is doing. And improvement is a part of the standard.

We already had less subjective standard ISO9001:1994 but it did not work.

When you hire consultant he is doing nothing but sharing information he has got when consulting other companies, his experience is from there so what is the difference.

I think that as usual “the truth is in the middle”. It depends on the company needs. I met both, companies so good organized that it was difficult to point out any valuable suggestion for improvement and (mostly) companies where “moving raw materials closer to the production floor” is something. Maciek

I have forgotten one thing. There is a management principle: the most dangerous moment for the company existence is when it’s management thinks their company is the best. Maciek

There is another principle from WWII that says "loose lips sink ships".

If we allow auditors in to do "value added" audits, they may be passing along information that THEY think is not crossing the line, but WE may think differently.

Moving raw materials closer to the production floor sounds like a harmless improvement suggestion, but if my company is the only one doing it in my area, it is pretty darn important to me. A couple of those "harmless" suggestions could make our industry advantage a whole lot slimmer.

I happen to work in an industry where there are a dozen competitors within a 50 mile radius, so I would rather not take that chance, thank you very much.

Moving raw materials closer to the production floor (and similar "value added" suggestions) has NOTHING to do with complying with the ISO standard and SHOULD NOT even be mentioned by the auditor.

Carl-

There is another principle from WWII that says "loose lips sink ships".

If we allow auditors in to do "value added" audits, they may be passing along information that THEY think is not crossing the line, but WE may think differently.

Moving raw materials closer to the production floor sounds like a harmless improvement suggestion, but if my company is the only one doing it in my area, it is pretty darn important to me. A couple of those "harmless" suggestions could make our industry advantage a whole lot slimmer.

I happen to work in an industry where there are a dozen competitors within a 50 mile radius, so I would rather not take that chance, thank you very much.

Moving raw materials closer to the production floor (and similar "value added" suggestions) has NOTHING to do with complying with the ISO standard and SHOULD NOT even be mentioned by the auditor.

Carl-
The example of putting the most-used raw materials nearest the production floor was chosen because it's so bloody obvious that it could never be considered proprietary information, no more than putting the toilets in enclosed areas might be considered a protected idea. If your competitors are that dumb, you probably don't have too much to worry about in that regard.
Look--every day in these forums people share forms, techniques and methods that could rightly be considered proprietary and no one thinks anything of it. It's hypocritical to acquiesce in this type of knowledge exchange and then say that a registrar's auditor's casual suggestions regarding patently non-proprietary subjects is unethical or somehow wrong.
Note: No auditor who hasn't been contracted to do consulting should ever spend billable time doing anything but auditing to the standard--no argument there. But there's a big difference between "value added" auditing--a marketing strategy wherein a registrar is contracted to provide advice--and an auditor who's smart (and ethical) enough to know intellectual property when he sees it and offers helpful advice that doesn't result in infringement or additional billing.

You make some very good points.

I just feel it is a slippery slope. I would rather not have a "value added" registrar auditing me, then cruising over to several of my competitors. It is lot safer knowing that they will not have to make the decision of what is, and is not "intellectual property" There are some great auditors out there, but I for one am not comfortable letting them decide what parts of my business they are willing to discuss and use as example with the next guy.

If they don't draw the line at where you stage raw material, just where DO they draw the line?

These forums are a whole different realm. The forum, and the people who visit it are not hired to perform a given task. We are all here of our own free will. Any confidentiality breach lies squarely with the individual entering the post. This is precisely why many companies are beginning to forbid blogs and industry related forum postings.

Carl-

. . .
These forums are a whole different realm. The forum, and the people who visit it are not hired to perform a given task. We are all here of our own free will. Any confidentiality breach lies squarely with the individual entering the post. This is precisely why many companies are beginning to forbid blogs and industry related forum postings.

Carl-
This is also an excellent reason for many who visit here to use pseudonyms rather than their real names and company affiliations.

As I wrote in an earlier post above:
"the real difference between one audit and another doesn't hinge on the marketing strategy of the registrar, but on the experience and competence of the individual on-site auditor."

Lost somewhere in our thread is the concept that "auditors shall not provide consulting services to the organizations they audit."

Apparently the reasoning for such concept was to avoid the conflict of interest issue. How is it the auditing community is willing to deviate from that original concept by offering "value added" auditing? In my mind, "value added" is synonymous with consulting, advising, etc. which require the consultant or advisor to be an advocate for the client.

This is also an excellent reason for many who visit here to use pseudonyms rather than their real names and company affiliations.

As I wrote in an earlier post above:
"the real difference between one audit and another doesn't hinge on the marketing strategy of the registrar, but on the experience and competence of the individual on-site auditor."

Lost somewhere in our thread is the concept that "auditors shall not provide consulting services to the organizations they audit."

Apparently the reasoning for such concept was to avoid the conflict of interest issue. How is it the auditing community is willing to deviate from that original concept by offering "value added" auditing? In my mind, "value added" is synonymous with consulting, advising, etc. which require the consultant or advisor to be an advocate for the client.
I agree in principle, Wes, and I don't think Carl and I were in substantial disagreement either. I think the original problem lies in the mythical belief that auditors who are paid by the company they're auditing are objective third parties. Conflict of interest is built into the system.

I think the original problem lies in the mythical belief that auditors who are paid by the company they're auditing are objective third parties. Conflict of interest is built into the system.
I would not call it conflict of interest necessarily, but, certainly, it represents a risk to registrar impartiality. The upcoming successor of ISO Guides 62 and 66, ISO/IEC 17021 recognizes and addresses this issue (impartiality/objectivity/etc.) at length.

It even states: “….4.1.2 It is recognized that the source of revenue for a certification body is its client paying for certification, and that this is a potential threat to impartiality….”

As discussed several times in these forum, there are several stakeholders “interested” in the attestations provided by third-party registrars. However, the expectations from the different stakeholders are varied, and sometimes, conflicting. But at the end of the day, registrars that want to be successful have to attract and retain new clients, on a continual basis. They have to balance the expectations of their clients and their client’s clients very carefully, in order to have a sustainable operation.

The registrar selection process varies tremendously from organization to organization. Some are enticed by the “Guaranteed road to certification”. Some are attracted to the “path of least resistance” . On the other side of the spectrum, some like to hire registrars that will make you “earn the certificate”. Some even decide to hire registrars because they can bring something in “addition to the checklist”. When you pay upwards of US$1,000.00 per auditor-day, some people want to benefit as much as possible. That could include, for example, insightful comments, identification of opportunities for improvement, which, in itself do not constitute “consulting”; Another possible scenario to add value is to focus auditor attention to the parts of the system that are of higher risk than others.

The third party certification process has changed very little since it “began” in the 70’s in the UK. But, like everything else in life and business, it is subject to paradigm changes. Just like the business world is evolving and distancing itself from the time that inspection HAD to be done by someone else, other than the operator. The concept of making operators accountable for the quality of their work and (when appropriate) responsible for performing self inspection is still taboo for some less enlightened organizations and individuals that would still prefer to belong to ASQC rather than ASQ.

So, I don’t expect that everyone will accept changes in the assessment protocols. It is a cultural shift. The good news is that, in the US alone, there are over 75 accredited registrars. You can always find a registrar aligned with your expectations. Whatever they are.

When ISO 17021 is released and deployed, Registrars will be scrutinized even more thoroughly on how they manage the threats to their impartiality. I am glad to inform that, when the registrar I work for rolled out our new audit protocol, we approached the accreditation bodies we work with, to explain how this new protocol would not represent a conflict of interest. The accreditation bodies response was overwhelmingly positive and favorable.

So you don't charge for the time it takes for this added "value proposition"? or did your company decide that it was "value added" for their pocketbook as well?Sounds like a familiar tone, Carl.
The point Sydney, and others like me try to make when they discuss the assessment and certification service with people like you on the cove is that there is a difference between some registrars who turn up and do some sort of an audit and then go away and others who try to provide feedback to the company as an independent observer of practices and processes that the company may be able to use and employ.

Businesses such as certification bodies are in business to make money but the only way to do so is to offer a product the customer gets some value from at a price he / she is prepared to pay. That is the only way we can look to continue in business - otherwise certification becomes a commodity with the lowest priced supplier selected. Some people such as you (from the way I read your posts over the last few months) will always look for lowest price / least intrusion I for one hope there are other Cove subscribers who look for value before price.


I guess as long as you are clear on your position and the company signs a contract, everyone is on the same page.

I would tell them to take a hike, but my company has only been in business for about 50 + years, so I guess you could consider us young and brash. Ah the old "sling them out the door" line you never tire of repeating.

If I want a registrars opinion on something other than ISO, I'll ask for it.ISO now has sections on quality objectives and targets, process measures, data analysis, continuous improvement, corrective action, preventive action to name but a few. I could spend my time giving value adding "opinions" on an organization's business covering those topics and not stray away from ISO. If you want a compliance auditor there are still a few to be found but they are going the same way as dodos and dinosaurs.

Some comments:
Sounds like a familiar tone, Carl.
The point Sydney, and others like me try to make when they discuss the assessment and certification service with people like you on the cove is that there is a difference between some registrars who turn up and do some sort of an audit and then go away and others who try to provide feedback to the company as an independent observer of practices and processes that the company may be able to use and employ.
Kind of a cheap shot, Paul. Carl has been meticulous in not making personal aspersions against individuals - you would do well to do something similar

Businesses such as certification bodies are in business to make money but the only way to do so is to offer a product the customer gets some value from at a price he / she is prepared to pay. That is the only way we can look to continue in business - otherwise certification becomes a commodity with the lowest priced supplier selected. Some people such as you (from the way I read your posts over the last few months) will always look for lowest price / least intrusion I for one hope there are other Cove subscribers who look for value before price.
That's definitely not the way I read Carl's posts. He talks about getting best VALUE, not lowest price. Again, this personal mode is not seemly.


Ah the old "sling them out the door" line you never tire of repeating. As a "lapsed" auditor, why are YOU so incensed at what Carl has to say about "some" auditors?

ISO now has sections on quality objectives and targets, process measures, data analysis, continuous improvement, corrective action, preventive action to name but a few. I could spend my time giving value adding "opinions" on an organization's business covering those topics and not stray away from ISO. If you want a compliance auditor there are still a few to be found but they are going the same way as dodos and dinosaurs.
I don't see where the ISO9001:2000 Standard has ANYTHING to say about auditors rendering an opinion on how well an organization performs the topics, merely that they perform them. In fact, in the Introduction, these excerpts are telling (emphasis is mine)
0.1 General
The adoption of a quality management system should be a strategic decision of an organization. The design and implementation of an organization's quality management system is influenced by varying needs, particular objectives, the products provided, the processes employed and the size and structure of the organization. It is not the intent of this international Standard to imply uniformity in the structure of the quality management systems or uniformity of documentation.

0.4 Compatibility with other management systems
. . .
This International Standard does not include requirements specific to other management systems, such as those particular to environmental management, occupational health and safety management, financial management or risk management.
I remain unconvinced a third party auditor has any business giving opinions on "improving" any segment of an organization's operations except to "improve to MEET the Standard" and certainly not opinions on "EXCEEDING the Standard." In fact, the Standard specifically disclaims requirements specific to financial management or risk management which would seem to preclude comment on the efficiency and therefore "profitability" of a particular method of meeting the Standard.

Summary:
I think you owe an apology to Carl for the personal attack. I think you need to bolster your argument with some specific facts contained in the Standard or authorized interpretations of the Standard to justify consulting as part of an auditing assignment by a third party auditor. Next after consulting would appear to be "ranking" of auditees, signaling would-be customers that auditee A is "better" than auditee B, if we are to follow the logic advanced thus far for the consulting by auditors.

I'm not going venture into the middle of the (somewhat puzzling) invective suddenly appearing in this thread, but this statement needs to be addressed:
Next after consulting would appear to be "ranking" of auditees, signaling would-be customers that auditee A is "better" than auditee B, if we are to follow the logic advanced thus far for the consulting by auditors.
This is pure hyperbole, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with a little color, but it seems odd coming from one who has just challenged the substance of someone else's post. Please show us the place in the standard, Wes, where the offering of friendly advice by auditors is proscribed, or even discouraged.

I'm not going venture into the middle of the (somewhat puzzling) invective suddenly appearing in this thread, but this statement needs to be addressed:

This is pure hyperbole, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with a little color, but it seems odd coming from one who has just challenged the substance of someone else's post. Please show us the place in the standard, Wes, where the offering of friendly advice by auditors is proscribed, or even discouraged.
Offering (by that I mean a friendly gift of advice) is one thing. Selling it to compete against consultants and other auditors is something else.

The Standard, itself, is completely silent on the question of advice from 3rd party auditors.

Guide 62 comprises the rules for auditors. My attachment is an excerpt from previous editions of Guide 62. I am not aware of new versions which make these excerpts obsolete. In my mind, they seem to say ANY form of consulting is completely off limits. Please read them and make up your own mind. I have already rendered my opinion. What's yours after reading these excerpts?

Kind of a cheap shot, Paul. Carl has been meticulous in not making personal aspersions against individuals - you would do well to do something similar. If you call sweeping generalizations about auditors "not personal" then maybe you are right. My post was merely to point out that there is a well worn theme in Carl's posts - and yes we have clashed before but there are some things that do require highlighting.


That's definitely not the way I read Carl's posts. He talks about getting best VALUE, not lowest price. Again, this personal mode is not seemly.Sorry, you will have to point out the part in Carl's posts where he looks for value. I have had a scan through and all I can see is attacks, some "personal" as they are addressed to individuals.

As a "lapsed" auditor, why are YOU so incensed at what Carl has to say about "some" auditors? Specifically because the attacks are sweeping generalizations and any attempts by some of the more erudite and positive Cove members (Sydney, take a bow) are met with the same type of posts. The personal profile says my Lead auditor registration has lapsed - I still audit and I am one of the auditors that Carl would like to throw out as I look to provide a "value adding" service to clients whether on a 2nd or 3rd party basis.


I don't see where the ISO9001:2000 Standard has ANYTHING to say about auditors rendering an opinion on how well an organization performs the topics, merely that they perform them. In fact, in the Introduction, these excerpts are telling (emphasis is mine) I read through your ISO quotes and didn't understand the point. Your first quote about uniformity is meant to say there is no one way of addressing the requirements of the standard - although from the number of "identikit" manuals there are out there you wouldn't think so. The second quote is to restrict the scope of ISO to quality (rather than environmental, health & safety etc. Maybe you can explain your point again.

I remain unconvinced a third party auditor has any business giving opinions on "improving" any segment of an organization's operations except to "improve to MEET the Standard" and certainly not opinions on "EXCEEDING the Standard." In fact, the Standard specifically disclaims requirements specific to financial management or risk management which would seem to preclude comment on the efficiency and therefore "profitability" of a particular method of meeting the Standard. If you go back to the list of items in my original post the standard requires the organization to assess potential quality risks to itself and its customers, to learn from its mistakes, to continually improve, to assess its business processes for key indicators of performance and put in place systems to monitor and measure these, it must put in place systems to analyse data from those processes and at an executive level review the effectiveness of the systems it has in place to do all these things. My wording but all these things are in ISO if you look. So to achieve these requirements is not easy - to exceed is impossible! There are some organizations that do a better job than others of a) understanding the process approach and b) implementing the tools and techniques that deliver continuous improvement. The "value adding" auditor is able to offer the benefit of their experience in business / commerce to their customer and their knowledge of tools and techniques so that their customer's processes can become more effective and efficient.

Summary:
I think you owe an apology to Carl for the personal attack.If Carl takes my comments personally then I apologize. I do not take back the comments. The post was specific, not personal. I think you need to bolster your argument with some specific facts contained in the Standard or authorized interpretations of the Standard to justify consulting as part of an auditing assignment by a third party auditor.Firstly I do not intend quoting paragraphs of the standard at people. Believe me these elements or "specific facts" are in the standard. While I agree that the new requirements in ISO 9001 do make it more difficult for some to judge the boundary between consulting and auditing because of the nature of the work the auditor is asked to do the line for me is still simple. In consulting I tell you how to get over a particular problem, in auditing I can only observe that a process is not operating effectively or efficiently. As an individual with the aforementioned breadth of experience I can give examples of tools and techniques I have seen that dealt with the issue (without giving away any trade secrets. Next after consulting would appear to be "ranking" of auditees, signaling would-be customers that auditee A is "better" than auditee B, if we are to follow the logic advanced thus far for the consulting by auditors. Again I hope you can accept the auditors do not or should not "consult."

There are assessment processes out there that do "rank" the people who put themselves up for assessment - MBNQA, European Quality Award for example. I do not see a ranking system as being an option. There may, however, be some benefit in putting a grading system in place for those organizations (no names - that would be personal) who pay lip service to the requirements of the standard and barely "scrape over the bar" to get registration and those who embrace the principles of process management and continuous improvement to move their organization forward. Subject of another thread?

Wes, as you and I have not seen eye to eye in the recent past I thought I would have a look through the thread to see if there was anything in your posts worthy of censure.

As I re-examine my earlier comments, I detect my frustration with ANYONE, regular auditor or "value-added" auditor, coming in to a place of business, ostensibly on one mission (paid by the man hour), who casually shoots from the hip and says (by implication), "Oh by the way, although your operations meet the Standard I am paid to audit, I notice your business processes aren't up to industry benchmarks that I am aware of because I go into so many businesses and pay attention to what makes them profitable in addition to checking their adherence to the Standard. In fact, I am so knowledgeable about what makes a business more efficient and profitable that I can assess your business or any business as I casually pass from department to department and carry on my Standard audit in just a day or two on your premises. Also, you should know that if I didn't find any room for improvement, you overpaid for your audit because you didn't get any value added." Wes, a little personal, surely. Sarcastic comments like this are surely worthy of an apology to all the Cove members who in their daily life try to do a good job by providing an auditing service to a range of customers and ensure they are able to maintain their systems and demonstrate their systems comply with the international standard. Perjorative language like "shooting from the hip" is guaranteed to get peoples backs up. I think you should use more moderate language when you are making your point.

Even then, I would expect the opportunity for improvement in a non-Standard aspect of business to be recognized by a mere fluke during the short time an auditor is on the premises.Sounds like a general swipe at auditors again, Wes. The process approach requires the organization to highlight process measures and demonstrate it is monitoring them. It doesn't take too long to identify from looking at data that a process is not working correctly. The skill is understanding why the process isn't working well or how the organization might investigate themselves.

Let's agree the term "value added auditing" is merely a marketing ploy to set an auditing organization apart from its competitors to gain more business at a higher price. Another personal dig, Wes at some Cove members who might take the use of "marketing ploy" as a personal insult as they look to make an honest living by providing a service some clients find extremely useful.

I don't intend to belittle an auditor trying to push his company's marketing strategy, but that doesn't mean that I can't tell folks that the real difference between one audit and another doesn't hinge on the marketing strategy of the registrar, but on the experience and competence of the individual on-site auditor. I hope this is not a personal insult to Sidney (as up to now he seems to be the only poster who subscibes to the "value add" audit). The next statement is a general attack on registrars who attempt to develop their auditors and processes so that they are able to provide services that actually give their customers some more benefit (value) than just a certificate on the wall.

So, in summary, my post was not a personal attack but an attempt to show that some people posting have their own particular axes to grind and it is up to all members of the Cove to submit postings that give the Cove the balance that the members want to see. I acknowledge that my postings lately have appeared to be promoting the case of the Registrar - the only reason for that is that at the moment the main posts that grab my attention are the ones that attack registrars, auditors and audits. If you look throgh my other posts there are a wide range on topics such as tools and techniques, some that recommend to Covers that they tell their registrar to take a hike. Give me a more balanced thread and I don't have to go on the defensive.

Egads! Talk about smelling blood and working it into a frenzy. Paul, about half way through your last post it seems you shifted from making "value adding" points to a pure search for anything in the past Wes has said that you didn't like and cutting it to shreds.

While I agree that personal attacks should be avoided, we all have to be fairly thick skinned. Some "Covers" are very passionate in their experience and opinions, like Carl, and sometimes (like we ALL do) make "sweeping generalizations". I look at it this way: if it applies to me and makes sense, I try to use it to better myself. If it doesn't apply to me, or I disagree, I ignore it.

Regarding a specific point you made:
As an individual with the aforementioned breadth of experience I can give examples of tools and techniques I have seen that dealt with the issue (without giving away any trade secrets.
I think the point Carl makes is that we as auditors have to be careful - the 'tools and techniques we have seen' may not be in OUR opinion a trade secret, but might very well be one in the view of the company from which we "saw" it. I personally don't think we should be dogmatic in either extreme.

Anyway, let's all get out of the sandbox and take a time out. :truce:

Egads! Talk about smelling blood and working it into a frenzy. Paul, about half way through your last post it seems you shifted from making "value adding" points to a pure search for anything in the past Wes has said that you didn't like and cutting it to shreds. Not a detailed examination - just a look back through the last couple of postings to point out that there are lot of statements in posts that are, or can be interpreted as being, personal.

While I agree that personal attacks should be avoided, we all have to be fairly thick skinned. Some "Covers" are very passionate in their experience and opinions, like Carl, and sometimes (like we ALL do) make "sweeping generalizations". I look at it this way: if it applies to me and makes sense, I try to use it to better myself. If it doesn't apply to me, or I disagree, I ignore it.Agreed. All I look to see is a balance to postings. There are some statements - particluarly when repeated over a period of time that need to be challenged.

Regarding a specific point you made:

I think the point Carl makes is that we as auditors have to be careful - the 'tools and techniques we have seen' may not be in OUR opinion a trade secret, but might very well be one in the view of the company from which we "saw" it. I personally don't think we should be dogmatic in either extreme. Agreed. I understand the potential problems with bringing examples from outside. That doesn't mean you get rid of the concept - you just have to ensure your auditors know the boundaries and abide by them. I appreciate this is not easy - not for a lot of auditors I have seen / worked with but you cannot rule out the good guys because of a few bad apples. The example raised earlier in the post of moving stock nearer the line is a good one. Lean manufacturing is a set of simple tools that can be used by any company - it doesn't mean they have the necessary motivation to do so. None of these are trade secrets - to recommend to an organization they investigate this or that option is not breaking privelege or "consulting". I also make the point at the time when I try to "add value" through raising an observation about process efficiency or effectiveness that the organization is entitled to either ignore the advice immediately or to investigate and discard later as they see fit. I will always ask the question if I go back in but won't escalate to a non compliance if they have done nothing with it.

Anyway, let's all get out of the sandbox and take a time out. :truce: Agreed.I have no plans to make any unprovoked attacks on individuals or groups.

Offering (by that I mean a friendly gift of advice) is one thing. Selling it to compete against consultants and other auditors is something else.

The Standard, itself, is completely silent on the question of advice from 3rd party auditors.

Guide 62 comprises the rules for auditors. My attachment is an excerpt from previous editions of Guide 62. I am not aware of new versions which make these excerpts obsolete. In my mind, they seem to say ANY form of consulting is completely off limits. Please read them and make up your own mind. I have already rendered my opinion. What's yours after reading these excerpts?
Thanks for posting a good reference and striking a blow on behalf of objectivity in a thread that has been characterized for the most part by unsupported assertions (including some of my own).
I think Guide 62 is unequivocal in asserting that "...giving specific advice towards the development and implementation of management systems for eventual certification" is verboten. The document clarifies the intent further by saying that registrar's auditors are allowed to "...[add] value during assessments and surveillance visits, e.g., by identifying opportunities for improvement, as they become evident, during the audit without recommending specific solutions." (Emphasis added.)
Pretty hard to argue with. I would be interested in hear Mr. Simpson's response to this, as it appears that his strong assertions in favor of value-added auditing are not supported by the ISO requirements for auditors.

I think Guide 62 is unequivocal in asserting that "...giving specific advice towards the development and implementation of management systems for eventual certification"is verboten. (Further emphasis added.)Excuse the added emphasis. Not sure if any of the above contradicts what I have been saying. The intent of the guide is to ensure you don't have organizations implementing systems and then going on to register them - there may be a conflict with this! Once the system is in place the section on adding value comes into play ....
The document clarifies the intent further by saying that registrar's auditors are allowed to "...[add] value during assessments and surveillance visits, e.g., by identifying opportunities for improvement, as they become evident, during the audit without recommending specific solutions." (Emphasis added.)
Pretty hard to argue with.I have no argument with any of this. If you read back through my posts (and those of others who advocate value add in an audit process) it is clear there is still a dividing line between identifying where a process is not working effectively and recommending the organization investigates ways of bringing it on track or suggesting that they look at industry tools and techniques for improvement and the "...without recommending specific solutions." that ISO / IEC prohibit.
I would be interested in hear Mr. Simpson's response to this, as it appears that his strong assertions in favor of value-added auditing are not supported by the ISO requirements for auditors. I think you will find that my "assertions" fit quiter neatly into the Guidance that is ISO / IEC Guide 62.1996 "General requirements for bodies operating assessment and certification/registration of quality systems." If I can paraphrase: Thanks for posting a good reference and providing further support for my "assertions" in this thread.

Excuse the added emphasis. Not sure if any of the above contradicts what I have been saying. The intent of the guide is to ensure you don't have organizations implementing systems and then going on to register them - there may be a conflict with this! Once the system is in place the section on adding value comes into play ....
Sorry Paul, but you're straining here. Eventual certification clearly refers to anything that happens before certification. Suffice it to say that the plain language of the guide runs counter to your personal and frankly self-serving interpretation of it.
I have no argument with any of this. If you read back through my posts (and those of others who advocate value add in an audit process) it is clear there is still a dividing line between identifying where a process is not working effectively and recommending the organization investigates ways of bringing it on track or suggesting that they look at industry tools and techniques for improvement and the "...without recommending specific solutions." that ISO / IEC prohibit.
So what you're saying is that it's OK to say, "Your document control system doesn't meet the standard, so you should try to do better, and look at 'industry tools and techniques.'"? Not much help there, I'm afraid, so I'm not sure what you're arguing for. Can you give an example of what you feel would be offering a suggestion without recommending a specific solution?

Sorry Paul, but you're straining here. Eventual certification clearly refers to anything that happens before certification. Suffice it to say that the plain language of the guide runs counter to your personal and frankly self-serving interpretation of it.It is not too big a stretch for me. Sorry I don't have access to the guys who developed the guide right now to support my view but that was the intent when it was put together. Believe it or not, you still can get some unaccredited certification where a "consultant" will put in a system and then send the registrar (sometimes the same guy) to assess it. That is specifically the area they were trying to close out.

If you can't read that same interpretation from the words as you quoted them then I suggest we have nothing further to say on the matter.

So what you're saying is that it's OK to say, "Your document control system doesn't meet the standard, so you should try to do better, and look at 'industry tools and techniques.'"?Not an area I would pick as an example of where there is plenty of room for improvement but I'll give it a go. If the customer's document control system does not meet the standard that is a non compliance. Period. I would write it up and cite the clause of the standard. If they then asked me what the problem was I would try to explain where I thought the root cause lay.

On the other hand if their document control system met the requirements of the standard but was taking a large amount of time to administer for no real benefit then I might make an observation that there are other ways of demonstrating control of documents other than the CEO signing and authorizing each page of all the work instructions in logistics. Or that holiday forms do not have to have form numbers and issue levels to be controlled documents - or even if they have to be controlled at all. None of these findings would be recorded as non compliances - observations at best - sometimes verbal observations.Not much help there, I'm afraid, so I'm not sure what you're arguing for. Can you give an example of what you feel would be offering a suggestion without recommending a specific solution? A typical observation I raise would normally refer to the process concerned - highlight the problem and then suggest areas to investigate, such as:
"The manufacturing process for XYZ product is producing scrap above its target level. The analysis of root cause may be supported by using a disciplined problem solving methodology such as 8D."

It is not too big a stretch for me. Sorry I don't have access to the guys who developed the guide right now to support my view but that was the intent when it was put together. Believe it or not, you still can get some unaccredited certification where a "consultant" will put in a system and then send the registrar (sometimes the same guy) to assess it. That is specifically the area they were trying to close out.

If you can't read that same interpretation from the words as you quoted them then I suggest we have nothing further to say on the matter.
I can't, so your suggestion is accepted.


A typical observation I raise would normally refer to the process concerned - highlight the problem and then suggest areas to investigate, such as:
"The manufacturing process for XYZ product is producing scrap above its target level. The analysis of root cause may be supported by using a disciplined problem solving methodology such as 8D."So, from the standpoint of Guide 62, you think it is permissible to suggest specific solutions?

The key phrase is "such as". The customer can then look at 8D and any other tools he / she cares to and then decides which, if any, are appropriate.

The key phrase is "such as". The customer can then look at 8D and any other tools he / she cares to and then decides which, if any, are appropriate.
OK, now we're getting somewhere. It seems to me that Guide 62 specifically and categorically enjoins auditors from offering material assistance to an auditee in achieving registration. The example you give assumes that no major findings have occurred, thus the guidance rendered will not have an effect on whether or not the auditee gets registered. If this is correct, then it appears that non-specific observations that will have no effect on the auditee's prospects for registration are not prohibited by Guide 62.
Just for purposes of clarification, can you give an example of what you would consider a violation of the Guide 62 requirements?

OK, now we're getting somewhere.I'm glad you can see the progress, I'm not sure I can. It seems to me that Guide 62 specifically and categorically enjoins auditors from offering material assistance to an auditee in achieving registration.Enjoin is the wrong word - prohibit is the word I used earlier. The example you give assumes that no major findings have occurred, thus the guidance rendered will not have an effect on whether or not the auditee gets registered. Agreed. There should be no link between advice and non compliance or between advice and continuing registration.Any "advice" would have to be in one of two forms:

advice as to means to investigate and find out what is wrong (in the case of a non compliance)
advice as to what (other) tools and techniques are available (in the event that a process is operating outside its optimum (effectiveness / efficiency)
If this is correct, then it appears that non-specific observations that will have no effect on the auditee's prospects for registration are not prohibited by Guide 62.That is my understanding
Just for purposes of clarification, can you give an example of what you would consider a violation of the Guide 62 requirements?
Any setting up of systems prior to assessment, any advice to the client that implies there is only one way of addressing the problem - my way!

Enjoin is the wrong word - prohibit is the word I used earlier.
"Enjoin" and "prohibit" are synonymous in this context.

Agreed. There should be no link between advice and non compliance or between advice and continuing registration.Any "advice" would have to be in one of two forms:

advice as to means to investigate and find out what is wrong (in the case of a non compliance)
advice as to what (other) tools and techniques are available (in the event that a process is operating outside its optimum (effectiveness / efficiency)
Now my Waffling Detector is going off again. You use the term "continuing registration"; why assume that registration has taken place already, when Guide 62 specifically refers to "...giving specific advice towards the development and implementation of management systems for eventual certification."? (My emphasis)
You also say that you think it's OK to offer advice "as to means to investigate...(in the case of a non compliance)" which means that you feel that it's OK to offer advice that assists the auditee in solving problems which would otherwise prevent registration. This sort of thing is clearly prohibited, so I must again conclude that your interpretation is biased and self-serving. The clear intent of the referenced language in Guide 62 to is to enjoin third-party auditors from assisting auditees in the registration process; that is, providing help or advice that could make the difference between achieving registration or not.

"Enjoin" and "prohibit" are synonymous in this context. My apologies, I have checked the dictionary and find that there is a use for enjoin that includes prohibit. Although why anyone should replace a word with one meaning with another with two diametrically opposite meanings is beyond me.


Now my Waffling Detector is going off again. . I am afraid your waffling detector is malfunctioning. You use the term "continuing registration"; why assume that registration has taken place already, when Guide 62 specifically refers to "...giving specific advice towards the development and implementation of management systems for eventual certification."? (My emphasis)
. I think you either do not follow the thread - which I can't believe as you appear to be a reasonably intelligent man - or you choose to ignore part of my earlier post for reasons unbeknown to me. In the first part of my earlier post I specifically dealt with consultancy leading up to registration being prohibited. I then proceeded to the case of the extract from guide 62 you posted "...[add] value during assessments and surveillance visits, e.g., by identifying opportunities for improvement, as they become evident, during the audit without recommending specific solutions." (Emphasis added.)] How do you manage to lose the thread so quickly? I cannot be bothered with going round in circles chasing your arguments back and forth.

You also say that you think it's OK to offer advice "as to means to investigate...(in the case of a non compliance)" which means that you feel that it's OK to offer advice that assists the auditee in solving problems which would otherwise prevent registration. This sort of thing is clearly prohibited, so I must again conclude that your interpretation is biased and self-serving. Your twisting of words does not work with me. You appear to have gone from the words of Guide 62 to another form of wording that fits your argument. Again. I have better things to do than go chasing your grammer. The clear In your opinionintent of the referenced language in Guide 62 to is to enjoin third-party auditors from assisting auditees in the registration process; that is, providing help or advice that could make the difference between achieving registration or not. Just go back to the words of the guide again and compare with what you have written - compare and contrast.

Boy, I picked the wrong days to have my office redecorated!

We could argue and give chapter and verse about teh standard and the associated guide till the cows come home, but in the end, ISO auditors should not be giving suggestions for anything related to the ISO standard, much less those things in your system that are not ISO related.

If you want your ISO system audited, get an ISO auditor.

If you want business or manufacturing related improvement suggestions, get a consultant that specializes in that area.

Industry is too competitive to put even a fraction of your company potential on the line by sharing even minor practices with soemone who may be in the competitors den in a week. Regardless of whether they are ethical or not.

I would say that those that do not see the problem with it are the very reason I would not want them in my facility.

Carl-

:truce: I give up.

:truce: I give up.
It APPEARS you may have been outclassed. After viewing Paul's website through the profile link, I had little doubt as to the outcome of this debate. :lmao:

JSW05, :applause: You're :agree1:

It APPEARS you may have been outclassed. After viewing Paul's website through the profile link, I had little doubt as to the outcome of this debate. :lmao:

JSW05, :applause: You're :agree1:
Thank you. It's kind of like drinking beer--I know my limit. Sometimes I don't stop there, but I know where it is.:lol:

Don't you mean "drinking pints of Ale?"

Don't you mean "drinking pints of Ale?"
Whatever puts the fire out :biglaugh:

Whatever puts the fire out :biglaugh:
What do you say, Carl? Shall we let James drink out of the boot?
:truce: I give up.
Nooooooo! Say it isn't so!:lmao:
It APPEARS you may have been outclassed. After viewing Paul's website through the profile link, I had little doubt as to the outcome of this debate. :lmao:

OUCH! 404 codes do NOT a website make!:rolleyes:
I would say that those that do not see the problem with it are the very reason I would not want them in my facility.
Amen!
Perhaps on that note, we ought to close the thread. Any objections?

Perhaps on that note, we ought to close the thread. Any objections?
Hi Wes. I am not a forum moderator. What is meant by closing a thread? Or do you mean closing the poll?
In my experience closing threads was something done only in case of extreme situations where things got way out of hand and personal attacks went much beyond the casual heated discussions. Personally I don't think this was the case in this thread. What purpose would serve "closing this thread"?

Hi Wes. I am not a forum moderator. What is meant by closing a thread? Or do you mean closing the poll?
In my experience closing threads was something done only in case of extreme situations where things got way out of hand and personal attacks went much beyond the casual heated discussions. Personally I don't think this was the case in this thread. What purpose would serve "closing this thread"?
There are several options to closing a thread:


Delete entirely - not contemplated here
Close and hide - usually a temporary measure while Moderators and Administrators debate about content
Close to additional comment, but leave visible for reference purposes (contemplated here)
My reasoning (not firm, which is why I asked for opinion) is that two sides have a basic disagreement about interpreting a specific document (Guide 62) and have exhausted civil debate on the matter. I proposed to close it before emotions get out of hand. We have already devolved on one side to "displacement" (a term in comparative psychology where the subject transfers to a different topic in order to avoid a direct confrontation. Animals protecting territories often do this by stopping to preen themselves or appearing to lose interest instead of battling an encroacher.) The switch to humor, however crude or rude, is a prime example of human displacement.

If you have an interpretation of Guide 62 or a later version which resolves the issue, please post!

Thanks for the explanation. Since you are asking for feedback, I don't think this thread should be closed. While there are two strongly opposing views to the subject, I believe that civility has been reinstated.

There are no new revisions to the IAF Guidance document. As I mentioned already, ISO 17021 is being developed to replace ISO Guide 62.
I suspect that this thread, if allowed to continue, will continue to receive a lot of attention (over 3750 views so far). And increasing traffic to the Cove is a good thing.

We have already devolved on one side to "displacement" (a term in comparative psychology where the subject transfers to a different topic in order to avoid a direct confrontation. Animals protecting territories often do this by stopping to preen themselves or appearing to lose interest instead of battling an encroacher.) The switch to humor, however crude or rude, is a prime example of human displacement.
Displacement activity is defined as being inappropriate to the stimulus that provoked it. There's a big difference between animal psychology, especially in the area of certain stimulus-response behaviors, and a human who chooses a form of diplomacy over the continuation of a battle of wits with an unarmed combatant.

Displacement activity is defined as being inappropriate to the stimulus that provoked it. There's a big difference between animal psychology, especially in the area of certain stimulus-response behaviors, and a human who chooses a form of diplomacy over the continuation of a battle of wits with an unarmed combatant.
That may be, but I have scars from some encounters with "unarmed" combatants. Mostly, those scars come from tripping and falling on my own sword in my eagerness to establish mastery in the contest. Sometimes, however, they came when my back was turned as I quit the fight.

You are correct in that fighting with an unarmed combatant when you have a full armory is perceived as being a bully, not a hero.

Maybe the MOST difficult lesson to learn is to let a fool be a fool for all to see, rather than insult the intelligence of other observers by pointing out the obvious.

Perhaps it IS SUFFICIENT to point to the controlling document, Guide 62 (which we are now assured is still current), and let interested parties formulate their own conclusions regarding the positions various posters have taken in this thread.

That may be, but I have scars from some encounters with "unarmed" combatants. Mostly, those scars come from tripping and falling on my own sword in my eagerness to establish mastery in the contest. Sometimes, however, they came when my back was turned as I quit the fight.

You are correct in that fighting with an unarmed combatant when you have a full armory is perceived as being a bully, not a hero.

Maybe the MOST difficult lesson to learn is to let a fool be a fool for all to see, rather than insult the intelligence of other observers by pointing out the obvious.

Perhaps it IS SUFFICIENT to point to the controlling document, Guide 62 (which we are now assured is still current), and let interested parties formulate their own conclusions regarding the positions various posters have taken in this thread.
Amazing. Once again, I hoist the white flag. :truce: I hope that it at least gets me another amateur psychology lesson, and perhaps affords you the opportunity for a few more gratuitous insults.

After a long night of drinking out of a boot, (my "discplacement activity"), I would have to agree with Wes, I don't think this thread is going to go anywhere.

Someone may find some benefit in opening a new thread to discuss the interpretation of guide 62, however methinks it would get heated quickly.

Carl-

MY two penn'orth FWIW is to let the thread run. I have out together a "Circular Argument" detector and set it to ignore. In the unlikely event that anyone would like to set up a thread on Guide 62 then that might let this thread get back to its topic "Would you pay for ISO certification out of your own money."

I for one am going to set up a poll about value added auditing (which is where I came in).

I'm with a certification body so biased. Forget how good your quality is and whether you have a good QMS. True you don't need a certificate for that. The question is how can the customer believe you (confidence). Would you spend your own money on buying company shares only because the company told you they make good profits or would you demand that an independent CPA had audited the books and certified them to be true. So really the question is not about ISO9000 but certification in general. Why bother getting a university degree. You went to uni and know the stuff so why bother with the cert.

Denis,

The problem is, with ISO you get the certificate regardless of whether you pass the test or not. And once you get it, you only need to pay your invoice to keep it.

As evidence, tens of thousands of registration certificates have been granted in the U.S. over the last 10 years and only about a dozen have been pulled because they failed their audits.

I would certainly spend my own money if the company required me to have certification, but the certification itself is a wate of money otherwise. It adds no value to the system. I could use that money to actually put ISO to good use rather than "certify" the system. If you are truly following the standard, your internal audits will keep the system in check just as well as a Registrar.

Using your College example, would you be more comfortable saying
"I see you have a certificate in Excel"
or
"show me an example of your Excel abilities"

Your points are well taken, but I would respect a company more that said they were ISO compliant and offered to let us show up unannounced and audit them anytime more than a company that rested on an ISO certificate.

Carl-

The problem is, with ISO you get the certificate regardless of whether you pass the test or not. And once you get it, you only need to pay your invoice to keep it.Interesting. I think from the amount of correspondence in these pages most people have to expend a lot of effort to maintain their registration - some people think they spend too much time maintaining registration.

As evidence, tens of thousands of registration certificates have been granted in the U.S. over the last 10 years and only about a dozen have been pulled because they failed their audits. What you tend to find is that companies take action when they are left with non compliances. Sometimes it gets to the point when an organization's system is starting to fail and a major non compliance is raised. It is rare with this shot across their bows that organizations do not take effective corrective action. All of this information is confidential and it would not be in the public domain.

I would certainly spend my own money if the company required me to have certification, but the certification itself is a wate of money otherwise. It adds no value to the system. I could use that money to actually put ISO to good use rather than "certify" the system. If you are truly following the standard, your internal audits will keep the system in check just as well as a Registrar. Again covered elsewhere in a lot of detail. The examination - whether initial or continuing assessment visit becomes a focus (sometimes too much so) for getting the system in shape.

Using your College example, would you be more comfortable saying
"I see you have a certificate in Excel"
or
"show me an example of your Excel abilities"This assumes that you have the necessary time to give this person a thorough examination to determine competence. By the same analogy would you discard a qualification for a surgeon until you had seen them operate?

Your points are well taken, but I would respect a company more that said they were ISO compliant and offered to let us show up unannounced and audit them anytime more than a company that rested on an ISO certificate.
Your choice. Again if you do not see the value of the certificate I can understand you would want to do it yourself. Some of us see value in certification and see it as an opportunity of not wasting my and their time with another quality audit.

I have a proposal to resolve all our concerns: what if a registar gets paid to find non-conformances only.

If you have a good QMS, you pay nothing and maintain registeration!!!!
If you have a lousy QMS, you pay for your sins and no more window dressing!!!!

Of course, the registar (trying to make money) will nitpick everything but it maybe a small price to pay for continual improvement.

What do you think?

Denis,

The problem is, with ISO you get the certificate regardless of whether you pass the test or not. And once you get it, you only need to pay your invoice to keep it. If you are truly following the standard, your internal audits will keep the system in check just as well as a Registrar.
Your points are well taken, but I would respect a company more that said they were ISO compliant and offered to let us show up unannounced and audit them anytime more than a company that rested on an ISO certificate.
Carl-

Again, Carl, your opinion and your entitled to it, but it doesn't necessarily reflect the totality of what's going on in the ISO world. I've seen a shift (for the good!) from 10 yrs. ago, where clients registering HAD to have the certificate (demanded by THEIR customers) to currently, going for registration because they see intrinsic value in it in improving their operations. These same customers say that rarely do any of their customers ask them to be registered ( I personally think this is the best reason to do ANYTHING). At least for me, the ISO market seems to have moved toward it being the choice of many (not all) companies' choosing registration. Obvious exceptions are the TS/QS, AS and maybe the TL Stds; please go talk to the "Big Three" and the Airline industry, as they are dictating this "do as I say, not as I do" quality program.

As to "if you are truly following the Standard....", in theory, this sounds good, and I agree with it. But the problem is very similar to folks who are trying to lose weight , stop drinking or stop smoking. Some folks are disciplined enough to do either on their own (including longterm maintenance of the better habits) and some folks can't do it, without continued, structured 3rd party help, i.e. AA, Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig. It's very similar in principle, but relative to ISO, there are the added factors of meeting the contractual agreements and/or regulatory items, you are saying to customers that you are abiding by. (Obviously, if you fall off the wagon, start smoking again or gain weight, the only person impacted is you. In ISO, it's about what you promised to 3rd parties, and whether or not you've delivered and if they are impacted...contractual). To a 3rd Party Auditor, it is very telling when you come in the door after a 6 month break, to find the MR meeting, the IA's and assorted CA/PA's and Doc changes, have miraculously been completed just weeks or days, prior to my visit. Had we not been coming in, at regularly scheduled periods, would these things have been done, or would they have been continued to be delayed/rescheduled until the company completely forgot to do them? Hence, the existence of the 3rd party audit. Additionally, would you really accept that a person is telling you their QMS is "compliant" to ISO, without any strong, track record evidence (other than, when you start experiencing problems doing business with them)?

As far as showing up "unannounced" to visit an ISO compliant company, I'm not sure why you couldn't do this, as it has nothing to do with certification and everything to do with the company you wish to visit. There is nothing stopping a registered company from doing the same thing, with their customers. If you're referring to registrar visits, the visits are regularly scheduled, because a) the registrar needs to evaluate if what was initially viewed (and blessed) was just a "snapshot" in time, or part of a continuous, cohesive movie, and b) to make an "unannounced" visit, smacks of OSHA and FDA tactics, which are typically seen as more regulatory and enforcement actions, as opposed to ISO, which is suppose to take the attitude, that the company is "innocent, until proven guilty". JMHO

Now, please excuse me while I go out for a smoke and a 6-pack, before my AA meeting. :biglaugh:

I have a proposal to resolve all our concerns: what if a registar gets paid to find non-conformances only.

If you have a good QMS, you pay nothing and maintain registeration!!!!
If you have a lousy QMS, you pay for your sins and no more window dressing!!!!

Of course, the registar (trying to make money) will nitpick everything but it maybe a small price to pay for continual improvement.

What do you think?

Hey, let's go a step further. I'm assuming you are the QA or manufacturing Mgr. working at the company manufacturing the widgets that I'm purchasng. If you have a good QMS, and everything you ship to me is good, I pay nothing towards your salary, since the system did what it was suppose to do and you were not necessary (non-value added). If you have a lousy QMS (that didn't catch the process or product issues), your salary is determined by how many parts you rework, how quickly you do it and how satisfied I am with your performance.

Better yet, if we outsource your companys' work altogether, you won't have a job, but it'll certainly solve the problem of those irritating registration audits.

What do you think?? :rolleyes:

If you have a good QMS, you pay nothing and maintain registeration!!!!
If you have a lousy QMS, you pay for your sins and no more window dressing!!!!

Of course, the registar (trying to make money) will nitpick everything but it maybe a small price to pay for continual improvement.

What do you think? When I was working for one registrar (who shall remain unnamed!) they were looking to install a means of measuring performance - it was suggested by some of the senior assessors that a measure could be the number of noncompliances raised at audit. The logic being that "good" auditors would find holes and "bad" auditors would miss them. It wasn't implemented but there are still some people out there who truly believe you can only have done a good job if you leave a customer with a long list of things to fix.

I feel like the kid saying "the Emperor has no clothes!"

Will someone please refresh my memory why I, as a customer, want my suppliers to have formal registration to a specific Standard? What real benefit do I derive as a customer?

The Standard and its registrars repeatedly say they are only concerned with the registrant's quality system, not the quality of the products that system produces, nor of the service that system renders to me.

As a customer, the supplier's adherence to a Standard "system" doesn't guarantee me a good product any more than the salesman's promise (maybe less.) I can point to plenty of anecdotal evidence that "some" registrants turn out dreck products and services, PLUS I can take you to at least one supplier and let you judge for yourself.

I pretty much assume a supplier holding itself open for business thinks it has capability and capacity to fulfill my order, regardless if it has formal registration to a Standard or not. The existence of a registration certificate to a Standard doesn't prevent me from falling victim to a supplier overestimating his capability or capacity. If a supplier registered to a Standard fails to meet my requirements, I'm pretty sure its registrar will not even give me the courtesy of a "Sorry about that!" let alone pay me some sort of compensation for my trouble.

If I am a supplier and I believe the rumors that having an ISO certificate of registration will NOT give me a market advantage and none of my customers demand such registration, is there ANY advantage to paying the fee for registration rather than hiring top notch employees and going to a GREAT consulting firm who will be my advocate by terms of the contract and will help assure I have a GREAT Quality System turning out Great Products? Do I even have to bother claiming "compliance" to a Standard (Toyota doesn't)?

Carl - It's not really a "passing test' scenario but I know what you mean. If what you say is true in the USA then confidendence is lost and I agree it is worthless.

I don't know how you got your statistics, would be interested in your source. In reality certification is rarely withdrawn for non-compliance because the auditor cannot do that. He raises a major NCN. This automatically means suspension (not withdrawal) of registration. If on the next visit (or follow-up) it is not corrected then withdrawal is automatic but this rarely happens. The client would cancel registration. He's not going to pay for a visit when he knows it will result in withdrawal. It's better to track statistics for major non-compliances.

Maybe my university degree example was invalid but you did not address the more accurate one of company accounts being certified by a CPA rather than simply believing what the company says. Maybe you are not disputing the merits of independent auditing and certification but rather the professionalism of registrars in your country.

Sure seeing with your own eyes is better, be it 'show me your excel capabilities' or 'showing up unannounced to audit' but that isn't always feasable. I don't have time to watch every job applicant use excel so filter those with certificates then check just them. Similarly if you want to find a supplier in Asia (where I am) what will you do. Fly out unannounced and audit all prospective suppliers or only those with ISO9001 certificates or hire local independent auditors to do it for you.

Having said that, I think ISO9001 will die (or morph). I'm surprised at the poor ethics in the USA although Enron gave an indication but the real problem is China. They virtually buy certificates there (no assessment) and that will lead to a total collapse in confidence in ISO9001. But the need for independent certification is growing so it will stay albeit in a different form.

I feel like the kid saying "the Emperor has no clothes!"A well worn phrase around ISO 9000. But just because it is popular doesn't mean it is so.

Will someone please refresh my memory why I, as a customer, want my suppliers to have formal registration to a specific Standard? What real benefit do I derive as a customer?Again, I am sure this has been dealt with a hundred times in the cove but here goes again: I believe the idea is I, as the customer, can have some confidence the supplier has quality management systems and that they have been independently assessed against the requirements of an international standard.


The Standard and its registrars repeatedly say they are only concerned with the registrant's quality system, not the quality of the products that system produces, nor of the service that system renders to me.The idea is that the system enables the product to be manufactured to your requirements or the service is delivered to your requirements because I, as the supplier, am following a defined system.


As a customer, the supplier's adherence to a Standard "system" doesn't guarantee me a good product any more than the salesman's promise (maybe less.) Can I sell you a car?
I can point to plenty of anecdotal evidence that "some" registrants turn out dreck products and services, PLUS I can take you to at least one supplier and let you judge for yourself.Again the idea is if I have a system that captures customer requirements, design products / services and plan their production / delivery and then deliver the product / service it should meet your requirements. The problems typically come at the interfaces - hence the focus on a process based approach to try and think across boundaries. Regrettably systems are not perfect. They are designed and implemented by people.


I pretty much assume a supplier holding itself open for business thinks it has capability and capacity to fulfill my order, regardless if it has formal registration to a Standard or not. The existence of a registration certificate to a Standard doesn't prevent me from falling victim to a supplier overestimating his capability or capacity. If a supplier registered to a Standard fails to meet my requirements, I'm pretty sure its registrar will not even give me the courtesy of a "Sorry about that!" let alone pay me some sort of compensation for my trouble.Again there are no guarantees but - as has been mentioned in other threads - your first recourse is to the registered firm to use their corrective action system, the next escalation is to the registrar for them to investigate and if that fails you can complain to the accreditation body.


If I am a supplier and I believe the rumors that having an ISO certificate of registration will NOT give me a market advantage and none of my customers demand such registration, is there ANY advantage to paying the fee for registration rather than hiring top notch employees and going to a GREAT consulting firm who will be my advocate by terms of the contract and will help assure I have a GREAT Quality System turning out Great Products? Do I even have to bother claiming "compliance" to a Standard (Toyota doesn't)?As a supplier you are entitled to make your choice. If for the dollars you spend on registration you can hire employees who will make a difference or hire consultants who can put you down the right path then all power to your elbow. Many companies who are registered (such as Toyota in the UK) do not make a great song and dance about their registration (or "compliance" as you call it), probably because the majority of their potential customers are either not aware of ISO 9000 or its automotive variants. They do have it on their web site:

http://www.toyotauk.com/main/download/pdf/Awards%20and%20Accred%20June%202005.pdf

Again, I am sure this has been dealt with a hundred times in the cove but here goes again: I believe the idea is I, as the customer, can have some confidence the supplier has quality management systems and that they have been independently assessed against the requirements of an international standard.
Which is indicative of what, other than itself? I think the point is that being registered doesn't make for reliable predictions of anything with regard to output. If you have data to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

The idea is that the system enables the product to be manufactured to your requirements or the service is delivered to your requirements because I, as the supplier, am following a defined system. That may be the idea, but it makes no sense. Products were being manufactured to requirements for a long time before ISO (or BSI even). It's possible to follow a defined system and make nothing but "dreck" as Wes put it.

The problems typically come at the interfaces - hence the focus on a process based approach to try and think across boundaries. Regrettably systems are not perfect. They are designed and implemented by people.
Sorry Paul, but this is, as Mr. T would say, "jibba jabba." How do you define "interface"? Is an interface somewhere between processes? In my experience, the "interface" is the safest place to be. Problems happen within processes.

I heard many years ago (dunno if true or urban myth) that in Chine (must be myth) you pay doctors like a subscription fee when your healthy. When you are sick you stop paying. Concept being that the healthier the doctors clients are the more he earns.

Paul - Last year UKAS made moves to track this. They compared number of NCNs issued against CB application office and auditor. Theory being almost as you said. If few NCNs raised then the audit wasn't thorough.

Wes - not sure if you don't see value in the standard or regsitration against the standard. I would say both you and Paul are right. You see no point and it doesn't give you any more confidence in a supplier. OK fine, then you ignore it. But it may (does) give others more confidence so where's the harm. I think it comes more to play not with suppliers like Toyota who you already know well but prospective suppliers who you know relatively little about.

Wes - not sure if you don't see value in the standard or regsitration against the standard. I would say both you and Paul are right. You see no point and it doesn't give you any more confidence in a supplier. OK fine, then you ignore it. But it may (does) give others more confidence so where's the harm. I think it comes more to play not with suppliers like Toyota who you already know well but prospective suppliers who you know relatively little about.
The harm is in the false sense of security that it (registration) creates. If we can agree that there is no measureable benefit in registration (other than keeping customers who require it happy), then what's the point?
I have seen the stifling effect that ISO registration can have on creativity and innovation when it comes to quality system design. We all know that ISO describes a minimum framework but unfortunately there are lots of people outside the quality profession who think that getting registered is like going to heaven--that something wonderful and awesome has been accomplished. After a registrar's auditor has swept through the building and pronounced that all is well, just try telling someone who has a serious issue that the auditor didn't catch that they need to change something. They look at you like you're crazy.
My own opinion is that the whole registration phenomenon has caused much more harm than good.

A well worn phrase around ISO 9000. But just because it is popular doesn't mean it is so.

Again, I am sure this has been dealt with a hundred times in the cove but here goes again: I believe the idea is I, as the customer, can have some confidence the supplier has quality management systems and that they have been independently assessed against the requirements of an international standard.


The idea is that the system enables the product to be manufactured to your requirements or the service is delivered to your requirements because I, as the supplier, am following a defined system.


Can I sell you a car?
Again the idea is if I have a system that captures customer requirements, design products / services and plan their production / delivery and then deliver the product / service it should meet your requirements. The problems typically come at the interfaces - hence the focus on a process based approach to try and think across boundaries. Regrettably systems are not perfect. They are designed and implemented by people.


Again there are no guarantees but - as has been mentioned in other threads - your first recourse is to the registered firm to use their corrective action system, the next escalation is to the registrar for them to investigate and if that fails you can complain to the accreditation body.


As a supplier you are entitled to make your choice. If for the dollars you spend on registration you can hire employees who will make a difference or hire consultants who can put you down the right path then all power to your elbow. Many companies who are registered (such as Toyota in the UK) do not make a great song and dance about their registration (or "compliance" as you call it), probably because the majority of their potential customers are either not aware of ISO 9000 or its automotive variants. They do have it on their web site:

http://www.toyotauk.com/main/download/pdf/Awards%20and%20Accred%20June%202005.pdf

I am in agreement with everything Paul has said to respond to you, Wes. I will add one more thing (which I've said in other threads): Unless you are working for a company which has customers requiring you be registered, NOBODY IS FORCING ANYONE TO GET REGISTERED OR WORK FOR A COMPANY WHO IS REGISTERED. It's a choice, Wes. If you feel that it's pointless, so be it, but nobodys' holding a gun to your head to be involved with this or any Standard. :frust:

Having said that, if you don't want to be involved in ISO/Registration, Wes, that's fine. But, why do you have a problem with other people who do? If I don't like chocolate ice cream, does this mean I have to eat chocolate ice cream, when there are so many other choices, or worse yet, force/expect people to only eat the flavors I love? There's room for everyone in the world, and if you don't like, or agree with, ISO, maybe you should do like the Beatles, and just "Let It Be".

The harm is in the false sense of security that it (registration) creates. If we can agree that there is no measureable benefit in registration (other than keeping customers who require it happy), then what's the point?
I have seen the stifling effect that ISO registration can have on creativity and innovation when it comes to quality system design. We all know that ISO describes a minimum framework but unfortunately there are lots of people outside the quality profession who think that getting registered is like going to heaven--that something wonderful and awesome has been accomplished. After a registrar's auditor has swept through the building and pronounced that all is well, just try telling someone who has a serious issue that the auditor didn't catch that they need to change something. They look at you like you're crazy.
My own opinion is that the whole registration phenomenon has caused much more harm than good.

Sorry, can't agree. If people have a false sense of security, that's not the Standards' fault; that's the responsibility of the people supporting and using it. Who's measuring?? Because, I have clients who have their own metrics to back up the "intrinsic" value of their QMS (i.e. less rework, more flexibility in making sure employees are crosstrained so customers' get their orders as promised, better "first time/right time" product turnaround, etc). Does everyone experience this?? Maybe not. And yes, there are certainly companies that do just fine without ISO. So, what else is new. It's a choice and, unless you're in the automotive or aerospace industy, your company really has a choice of not being registered (Actually, if they've chosen to supply either of these 2 industries, then that also was a choice and the registration comes with the territory).

My God. I feel bad for you that you are obviously living a double life...you hate ISO and see no value in it (which is certainly your choice), yet you sound like you work in a company or system, which is registered and where you must smile and "walk the walk and talk the talk", even though you harbor this secret hate. This is not healthy, my friend. Life is too short. Do yourself a favor: find a job which doesn't require any involvement in ISO (certainly, there are lots of US companies to choose from) and Be Happy! :)

Sorry, can't agree. If people have a false sense of security, that's not the Standards' fault; that's the responsibility of the people supporting and using it. Who's measuring?? Because, I have clients who have their own metrics to back up the "intrinsic" value of their QMS (i.e. less rework, more flexibility in making sure employees are crosstrained so customers' get their orders as promised, better "first time/right time" product turnaround, etc). Does everyone experience this?? Maybe not. And yes, there are certainly companies that do just fine without ISO. So, what else is new. It's a choice and, unless you're in the automotive or aerospace industy, your company really has a choice of not being registered (Actually, if they've chosen to supply either of these 2 industries, then that also was a choice and the registration comes with the territory).

My God. I feel bad for you that you are obviously living a double life...you hate ISO and see no value in it (which is certainly your choice), yet you sound like you work in a company or system, which is registered and where you must smile and "walk the walk and talk the talk", even though you harbor this secret hate. This is not healthy, my friend. Life is too short. Do yourself a favor: find a job which doesn't require any involvement in ISO (certainly, there are lots of US companies to choose from) and Be Happy! :)
First, you'll note that I spoke no ill of the standard. Why would you assume that I "hate ISO"? What's not to like? The standard is fine, and any conscientiously applied quality system would resemble it, even if no one had ever seen it before. It has its limits, but it's an acceptable starting point. It's registration I was talking about. Registration adds no value, unless, as I said, it's required by a customer. Even then, the only value is meeting the customer requirement. It does nothing to insure quality designs, or quality products, or efficacious processes. It also does nothing to help improve products, which is the most important competitive goal.
No need to feel bad for me, my friend. I have a job I like, and yes, in an ISO-registered company. I'm not at liberty to say much more than that about it, but I will say that there has been a serious look at the value of registration lately.

JSWO5 - I'm not sure what you don't like. You have no problem with the standard. Do you see no value in independent audits. Surely at the very least opening your doors and books to inspection reduces the chance of shady practices. I'm sure Nike's 10 year old staff make quality shoes. Or is it the certificate you don't like. It's the same as a medical certificate, auditor or inspection report. A piece of paper to confirm what was inspected and the result.

I agree the trumpet blowing that comes from certified companies is misplaced but thats the company fault. Personally I see certification like having the annual accounts certified by a CPA or newspaper having their circulation figures audited. No big deal but mention should be made.

If anything I would prefer the word quality be dropped and the audit be broader so it encompasses more operational affairs. At present there is a move to "integrated audits" but not integrated standards. A company could be faced with needing/wanting 9001/14001/HACCP(22000)/SA8000 and god knows what more.

JSWO5 - My registrar requires me at the closing meeting to explain/stress that the audit was based on sampling and that because no noncompliances were found doesn't mean that that none exist. If they look at me like I'm crazy I list the 101 errors/problems I commented on but did not raise formal NCNs for.

Also, now auditors are required not to just spot NC's but to make observations for improvement (OFI's). So the client should see that although certification is not affected his system is far from perfect. Hey how about that for value added. You get free business consulting advice thrown in.

My circular argument detector is beeping gently but I'll give this a go
Which is indicative of what, other than itself? I think the point is that being registered doesn't make for reliable predictions of anything with regard to output. .As has been covered elsewhere ISO registration is not a guarantee but is an indicator that a supplier has systems in place you can rely on. It is an indicator but if you don't do a good job of communicating your requirements and the supplier doesn't do a good job of reading between the lines the product / service may not be what you want. You then have recourse to an established corrective action system.

If you have data to the contrary, I'd love to see it.Don't the ASQ have a Quality 500 index that outperforms the Fortune, or is that my memory playing tricks. The problem with data is that there is no control group you can test again and there is no control over the base sample. There are some organizations out there with excellent quality systems who don't go for registation and similarly there are some organizations with poor systems who have registration - again there is no control group of registrars and auditors.


That may be the idea, but it makes no sense. Products were being manufactured to requirements for a long time before ISO (or BSI even). It's possible to follow a defined system and make nothing but "dreck" as Wes put it..The old "concrete life preserver" argument. I agree, in an ideal world ISO registration would be a guarantee but unfortunately the amount of time a registrar spends in a company can only give an indication of how the system is performing,


Sorry Paul, but this is, as Mr. T would say, "jibba jabba." Unfortunately I am not familiar with the writings of Mr. T, where can I pick up his latest tome?

How do you define "interface"? Is an interface somewhere between processes? In my experience, the "interface" is the safest place to be. Problems happen within processes.No an interfcae is something between groups of people, departments typically, and this is where the issues arise. So within my department I manage the process effectively and then I toss it over the wall without telling you it's urgent so it still ends up late at the customer. The thing about the process approach is that the interfaces are not the place to hide anymore - they are the areas for focus.

The harm is in the false sense of security that it (registration) creates. If we can agree that there is no measureable benefit in registration (other than keeping customers who require it happy), then what's the point? :topic: I am sure you will understand this is an area we won't agree on. The benefit of registration (as opposed to the idea of audits adding value above and beyond registration which is the topic of this thread) is to have an independent person come in to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the system and compliance with the standard.

I have seen the stifling effect that ISO registration can have on creativity and innovation when it comes to quality system design. Any examples?
We all know that ISO describes a minimum framework but unfortunately there are lots of people outside the quality profession who think that getting registered is like going to heaven--that something wonderful and awesome has been accomplished. After a registrar's auditor has swept through the building and pronounced that all is well, just try telling someone who has a serious issue that the auditor didn't catch that they need to change something. They look at you like you're crazy. There you have a problem. Your message to the company needs to be the same as Denis has been saying. The auditor is taking a sample - he / she can't be expected to find everything in their 1 day visit. If you have an auditor who is doing a poor job - just skimming the surface then I would complain to your registrar and request an audit who can give you the value your audit dollars deserve.

My own opinion is that the whole registration phenomenon has caused much more harm than good. Your opinion. I agree with some of the points you make and there is a need to fix the registration process and get more consistency between registrars and auditors. I can feel another thread coming on.

Paul - Well said..here here. You summed it all up great.

I think the problem many have is not the benefit of independant audits or certificates to show that the system has been audited. It's what happens in reality. Finicky auditors missing the point of whether quality is effected, consultants with off-the-shef template solutions, overemphasis by companies on their certification, failure of accreditation bodies to consider customer concerns and market practices, hangers-on cashing in on a ISO9001 milk-cow and CB's (I'm guilty) under commercial pressure.

I look at it this way. Do you go to universty to do the minimum and crash study to get a degree so you can get a job or do you go to get an education and the degree is just confirmation you got it but not the end-product. You get out of it what you want to put in. My uni degree is in a load of junk with my swimming certificate not on my wall. I got what I wanted. But I do need to dig it out every once in a while as evidence.

My blood pressure monitor, hooked up to this thread, shows an alarming increase! What started out as a relaxed discussion of the original question (i.e. would you spend your own money for registration?) seems to have become a heated defense of individual domains, as also indicated by Paul's "circular argument meter".

Please read the first dozen or so posts that started this thread. Also, note the current poll results: about two-thirds of the people responding would not spend their own $$.

Bottom line is this: The ISO standard is a good framework for a business system. Registration to it (with indepedent third party auditing) is a choice. The choice is based on whether there is an advantage to it (e.g. customer requirement, marketing tool, or the need for an unbiased look at your system - with possible "value-adding"). If your customers do not require it, there is no marketing advantage, and you have access by other means to skilled and knowledgeable business planning expertise, then why pay for an embossed 8 x 10 gold foil lettered piece of paper?

Does it go any deeper than that?

Paul - Last year UKAS made moves to track this. They compared number of NCNs issued against CB application office and auditor. Theory being almost as you said. If few NCNs raised then the audit wasn't thorough.Talk about an encouragement to nit pick! There was me believing that with 9k2k there would be more "observations" about efficiency and effectiveness of systems and fewer "non complainces" relating to document control etc.

Ah well. I will have to get out of my touchy - feely "Value Add" mode and put my "compliance" leathers back on.

JSWO5 - My registrar requires me at the closing meeting to explain/stress that the audit was based on sampling and that because no noncompliances were found doesn't mean that that none exist. If they look at me like I'm crazy I list the 101 errors/problems I commented on but did not raise formal NCNs for.

Also, now auditors are required not to just spot NC's but to make observations for improvement (OFI's). So the client should see that although certification is not affected his system is far from perfect. Hey how about that for value added. You get free business consulting advice thrown in.
Denis, What I was referring to is what happens after the auditor leaves the building. No one should expect that an outside auditor will catch everything. The problem is that people have been put under a great deal of pressure for months in anticipation of the registration audit--they've done a lot of hard work, and the work that they've put into building the system has detracted from their regular work, which means a lot of people have been spinning and furiously chasing their tails and they think that when the imprimatur of the registrar has been bestowed, they've reached some sort of summit. It's a very rude awakening when it's learned that someone is taking continuous improvement seriously, and the work isn't really done.

There's been a recurring theme here--that ISO registration is a choice and if you don't like it, don't do it. But the obvious problem with that is that for the people who actually have to do the work, there is no choice--the registration process has been thrust upon them by people who don't want to be bothered with real leadership and doing the work needed to actually fix the problems that cause all of the trouble.

My circular argument detector is beeping gently You should take a moment and find out what "circular argument" means before suggesting that someone is making one. Hint: It has nothing to do with repetition, or retreating to an earlier position.

As has been covered elsewhere ISO registration is not a guarantee but is an indicator that a supplier has systems in place you can rely on.
I'm with you right up to the "you can rely on" bit.

It is an indicator but if you don't do a good job of communicating your requirements and the supplier doesn't do a good job of reading between the lines the product / service may not be what you want. You then have recourse to an established corrective action system.
All of which are possible, and easier to accomplish, without registration. Not without a quality system mind you, but without registration.

Don't the ASQ have a Quality 500 index that outperforms the Fortune, or is that my memory playing tricks.
Sounds like a possible false dichotomy--maybe ASQ has an index and your mind is playing trickshttp://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/biggrin-a1.gif . And there is, of course no data to show a causal link between registration and quality improvement.

The problem with data is that there is no control group you can test again
I think that establishing controls would be a relatively simple matter. The problem is in getting companies to allow people to take a critical look at their data and records, which would be a great deal easier if the management in those companies really believed that improvement had taken place.

The old "concrete life preserver" argument. I agree, in an ideal world ISO registration would be a guarantee but unfortunately the amount of time a registrar spends in a company can only give an indication of how the system is performing,
No one is disputing this.


Unfortunately I am not familiar with the writings of Mr. T, where can I pick up his latest tome?
I'm afraid his greatest works are out of print, but you can get a feel for them here:Mr. T Jibba Jabba Archive (http://mrt.sciamachy.net/jibbajabba/)


No an interfcae is something between groups of people, departments typically, and this is where the issues arise. So within my department I manage the process effectively and then I toss it over the wall without telling you it's urgent so it still ends up late at the customer. The thing about the process approach is that the interfaces are not the place to hide anymore - they are the areas for focus.
Again, I have no problem with the spirit of the standard, but the sad fact is that just because the hiding places have been identified doesn't mean that no one will try to hide there anymore. And the "interfaces" are the places where there's likely to be no tangible evidence of prior events anyway.

I am sure you will understand this is an area we won't agree on. The benefit of registration (as opposed to the idea of audits adding value above and beyond registration which is the topic of this thread) is to have an independent person come in to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the system and compliance with the standard.
Now this is a circular argument. What is a registration audit? A visit by a third-party who evaluates the efficiency and effectiveness of the system. What is the benefit? A visit by a third-party who evaluates the efficiency and effectiveness of the system.

I feel like the kid saying "the Emperor has no clothes!"

Will someone please refresh my memory why I, as a customer, want my suppliers to have formal registration to a specific Standard? What real benefit do I derive as a customer? This has been discussed so many times here. For example around this exchange at http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=93147&postcount=39 (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=93147&postcount=39) The benefit for customers is that supplier’s registration to a QUALITY management system Standard should provide confidence to the customer that the supplier can deliver what is being ordered, when required. That is the concept behind it. As long as there are customers and suppliers, the CONFIDENCE factor will exist. That is the concept and theory behind it. We know that, in the real World there is a mismatch between the concept/theory and real practice.

Wes, if there were no (potential) benefits to customers to have their suppliers certified to a quality system standard, can you help explaining why do we have over half a million suppliers certified out there? Could it be that the Automotive OEMs are in a meaningless trance, for the last 11 years, telling their supplier base to be QS-9000 and ISO/TS-16949 certified? Why are the Aerospace OEMs requiring their suppliers to be AS9100 certified? And many other large organizations, around the World, telling their supplier base to be ISO 9001 certified? Could all these players be THAT dumb? It would be the pyramid scheme of the century…
The Standard and its registrars repeatedly say they are only concerned with the registrant's quality system, not the quality of the products that system produces, nor of the service that system renders to me. Please read it more carefully. The standard states that management system standards are complementary, NOT ALTERNATIVE, to product standards. If you as the CUSTOMER mis-specifies a product and the supplier has no way of knowing the application, you will going to get junk, just like YOU (the customer) specified. Again, a similar discussion has already been exchanged in thread http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=93147 (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=93147)
The harm is in the false sense of security that it (registration) creates. If we can agree that there is no measureable benefit in registration (other than keeping customers who require it happy), then what's the point?
I don’t agree.
I have seen the stifling effect that ISO registration can have on creativity and innovation when it comes to quality system design. We all know that ISO describes a minimum framework but unfortunately there are lots of people outside the quality profession who think that getting registered is like going to heaven--that something wonderful and awesome has been accomplished. After a registrar's auditor has swept through the building and pronounced that all is well, just try telling someone who has a serious issue that the auditor didn't catch that they need to change something. They look at you like you're crazy.
Sorry Jim, but the problem here is NOT the ISO registration. The problem here is the cultural mind set, adverse to change and continual improvement . The problem is that the organization does not understand that, like you said, ISO 9001 is a BASIC set of requirements, no world class measure of any kind.
My own opinion is that the whole registration phenomenon has caused much more harm than good. Compared to what? The endless, meaningless, redundant, confrontational, micromanaging customer audits?
Do I even have to bother claiming "compliance" to a Standard (Toyota doesn't)? From http://www.toyota.com/about/environment/news/images/04envrep-2.pdf (http://www.toyota.com/about/environment/news/images/04envrep-2.pdf)

• Certify/register key suppliers to ISO 14001 by December 2003.
• Achieve ISO 14001 certification/registration at all parts and vehicle distribution centers by FY2005 in the U.S., and by FY2003 in Canada
And more. So, the point is. Toyota is NOT adverse to management system Standards. Otherwise, they would not use them and tell suppliers to do the same.

Next?

We're seeing a lot of arm-waving here about the alleged benefits of registration, and no one is offering any evidence. That's because there is none. Appeals to authority and claiming "everyone's doing it, so it must be good" are not evidence. In fact, I think that Wes's allusion to The Emperor's New Clothes is entirely apt--the phenomenon of groupspeak is nothing new. I find it supremely ironic that there is much ado these days about "metrics" and the need to make "data-based decisions," but when it comes to ISO/TS/AS registration, there is no data whatsoever that would lead one to believe that there are measureable benefits, but everyone does it anyway.
Here are the questions that need to be answered:

Do ISO/TS/AS-registered companies have better quality performance than non-registered companies?
If the answer to #1 is "Yes," please show me the data, and go on to #3. If the answer is "No" or "I don't know" then you need to stop here and try to figure out why it's being done.
If it can be shown that ISO/TS/AS-registered companies have better quality performance, can an actual causal link be identified? How do you know, for example, that companies that were already performing better before registration aren't skewing the results?

We're seeing a lot of arm-waving here about the alleged benefits of registration, and no one is offering any evidence. That's because there is none. Appeals to authority and claiming "everyone's doing it, so it must be good" are not evidence. In fact, I think that Wes's allusion to The Emperor's New Clothes is entirely apt--the phenomenon of groupspeak is nothing new. I find it supremely ironic that there is much ado these days about "metrics" and the need to make "data-based decisions," but when it comes to ISO/TS/AS registration, there is no data whatsoever that would lead one to believe that there are measureable benefits, but everyone does it anyway.
Here are the questions that need to be answered:

Do ISO/TS/AS-registered companies have better quality performance than non-registered companies?
If the answer to #1 is "Yes," please show me the data, and go on to #3. If the answer is "No" or "I don't know" then you need to stop here and try to figure out why it's being done.
If it can be shown that ISO/TS/AS-registered companies have better quality performance, can an actual causal link be identified? How do you know, for example, that companies that were already performing better before registration aren't skewing the results?
Do you have data that ISO/TS/AS registration is harmful in any way to businesses? The absence of evidence means there is no conclusion to this argument. In something like management systems registration there is no controlled research - all we have is "arm waving" on both sides. Each of us can come up with anecdotal evidence of improvements / regression either from registration of systems or when systems / registration are dropped.

Do you have data that ISO/TS/AS registration is harmful in any way to businesses? The absence of evidence means there is no conclusion to this argument. In something like management systems registration there is no controlled research - all we have is "arm waving" on both sides. Each of us can come up with anecdotal evidence of improvements / regression either from registration of systems or when systems / registration are dropped.
You're confused about the nature of evidence, and the burden of proof. You're the one who's making cliams for substance, and if it exists you should be able to measure it, or at least identify it in some empirical way. The fact that measurement is difficult is no excuse. No one has been able to show that registration is more effective than just compliance (and compliance is a completely different issue, if we can agree that registration doesn't prove compliance, and isn't intended to).

http://www.irca.org/inform/issue7/TNicholls.htm

But this will obviously going to get dismissed because it comes from a biased source. Soooooooo, if the Certification Bodies are the ones that would benefit the most from a study that shows the correlation between registration and potential performance improvements, but any study funded by them would be immediately dismissed as biased, it is pointless....

Jim, if you have been following my posts, I have said numerous times that, in my estimation, most companies implementing and attaining certification to a management system standard do not realize the benefits they should. There are serious flaws in the deployment process for 3rd party certification. While some (few) try to address and correct the flaws, others want to dismiss the whole concept.

Winston Churchill said once: "Democracy is the worst form of government, with the exception of all others". Instead of abandoning Democracy, let's work hard to continually improve it.

On another thread, I just mentioned that Boeing is now telling their supplier base to be AS9100 certified. In that letter they explain the reasons behind it. Let me paste a couple of paragraphs from that letter:

"...Why?
Other party recognition is part of an industry initiative to promote a standardized process and reduce redundancies and variation. Suppliers have told the industry that they want an elimination of redundant quality management system assessments. For this reason, Boeing has joined with other OEMs to recognize and now require certification.
Use of the ICOP certification process will eliminate the need for redundant quality system assessments. Additionally, they will enable Boeing to devote greater resources to product conformance and supplier development...."

But this will obviously going to get dismissed because it comes from a biased source. Soooooooo, if the Certification Bodies are the ones that would benefit the most from a study that shows the correlation between registration and potential performance improvements, but any study funded by them would be immediately dismissed as biased, it is pointless....
I won't dismiss it on any grounds because I haven't seen the data or the study protocol. I will say that I'm immediately skeptical given the source, and I'll reiterate that such studies don't show any causal relationship. They might confirm that a coincidence has occurred, but whether there's any substance to the coincidence (i.e., whether the coinicidence is significant vis-a-vis the contention) is left to speculation.
Winston Churchill said once: "Democracy is the worst form of government, with the exception of all others". Instead of abandoning Democracy, let's work hard to continually improve it.
This is a strawman, Sidney. Churchill was asserting that Democracy is the best present form of government, and there is empirical evidence to support that contention. The same can't be said for ISO registration; there's nothing in evidence to support the contention to begin with. It's like saying, "Beating yourself over the head with a rubber mallet is better than using a ball peen hammer." Perhaps, depending on what you're trying to accomplish, but the best course of action would be to stop beating yourself over the head, unless there's some benefit to it that outweighs the pain and suffering.

First, you'll note that I spoke no ill of the standard. Why would you assume that I "hate ISO"? What's not to like? The standard is fine, and any conscientiously applied quality system would resemble it, even if no one had ever seen it before. It has its limits, but it's an acceptable starting point. It's registration I was talking about. Registration adds no value, unless, as I said, it's required by a customer. Even then, the only value is meeting the customer requirement. It does nothing to insure quality designs, or quality products, or efficacious processes. It also does nothing to help improve products, which is the most important competitive goal.

Spoke no ill of the Standard??? Sorry, but that has NOT come across in some of your messages.

As far as "registration" having no value, please go back to some of my other recent posts (value of 3rd party audits) where I've already mentioned this: some people/companies (not all) need the pressure (or the value of a 3rd set of eyes) of a 3rd party to keep them on track. Re: my smoking, drinking and weight loss examples. Also, the value of 3rd party is it's an unbiased set of eyes looking at your system, the system that you have lovingly put together and may be emotionally attached to. When I come in the door, I have no vested interest in your QMS, which can promote an atmosphere of asking "Why" something is done a certain way and get people thinking outside the box. If you don't see value in that, so be it. Then don't be registered or find employment with a company who isn't or find a company that models its' QMS after the Standard, and markets itself as "compliant". End of story.

Spoke no ill of the Standard??? Sorry, but that has NOT come across in some of your messages.
I can't help it if you read things that aren't there. Can you show me where I've specifically poo-pooed the standard, as opposed to registration to it?

As far as "registration" having no value, please go back to some of my other recent posts (value of 3rd party audits) where I've already mentioned this: some people/companies (not all) need the pressure (or the value of a 3rd set of eyes) of a 3rd party to keep them on track.
"On track" in what direction? Towards maintaining registration? How does that show the value of registration? You're arguing for the value to the registrar, methinks. Mr. Simpson's Circular Argument Detector should be sounding loudly right now.
Also, the value of 3rd party is it's an unbiased set of eyes looking at your system, the system that you have lovingly put together and may be emotionally attached to.
I think the jury's still out on that question. How is being paid by the auditee not a conflict of interest?
When I come in the door, I have no vested interest in your QMS,
But you do have a vested interest in keeping your customer happy, and the happiest customers are the ones who get registered. Look, don't get me wrong here--I'm not impugning your personal integrity, or that of any other individual. I'm questioning the integrity of the registration system.

I won't dismiss it on any grounds because I haven't seen the data or the study protocol. I will say that I'm immediately skeptical given the source, and I'll reiterate that such studies don't show any causal relationship. They might confirm that a coincidence has occurred, but whether there's any substance to the coincidence (i.e., whether the coinicidence is significant vis-a-vis the contention) is left to speculation.You wanted data, now you want to analyse the protocol. Is it the fact that the research doesn't fit your argument that causes the problem?


This is a strawman, Sidney. Churchill was asserting that Democracy is the best present form of government, and there is empirical evidence to support that contention. Have you checked that protocol? There is plenty of empirical evidence that communism is the best form of government at the moment. I know it's a little while since Churchill died but ...

The same can't be said for ISO registration; there's nothing in evidence to support the contention to begin with. It's like saying, "Beating yourself over the head with a rubber mallet is better than using a ball peen hammer." Perhaps, depending on what you're trying to accomplish, but the best course of action would be to stop beating yourself over the head, unless there's some benefit to it that outweighs the pain and suffering. Interesting analogy. Taking Sidney's earlier point you assume there are half a million emperors around who have to be told they have no clothes. It is a shame they are all marching out of step with you.

You're confused about the nature of evidence, and the burden of proof. You're the one who's making cliams for substance, and if it exists you should be able to measure it, or at least identify it in some empirical way. I don't agree. I don't see any confusion in my posts. I agree with little you say (but it causes me little angst). I am used to dealing with evidence all the time I audit and also when I (quite separately) consult. You seem to imply that this is a court of law and I am the prosecutor - hence with the burden of proof. In any argument the burden of proof is equally shared. Those wanting to convince the emperor that he is wearing no clothes probably have the first step to take.
The fact that measurement is difficult is no excuse. No one has been able to show that registration is more effective than just compliance (and compliance is a completely different issue, if we can agree that registration doesn't prove compliance, and isn't intended to). Unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to personally conduct any research (certainly none that would meet your standards for a bullet proof protocol) to present to you. There is some research evidence around but if that is not acceptable all I can offer is anecdotal examples of where I have left a registered organization in better shape than before I went. Sounds similar to what you have to offer but in reverse.
Denis, What I was referring to is what happens after the auditor leaves the building. No one should expect that an outside auditor will catch everything. The problem is that people have been put under a great deal of pressure for months in anticipation of the registration audit--they've done a lot of hard work, and the work that they've put into building the system has detracted from their regular work, which means a lot of people have been spinning and furiously chasing their tails and they think that when the imprimatur of the registrar has been bestowed, they've reached some sort of summit. It's a very rude awakening when it's learned that someone is taking continuous improvement seriously, and the work isn't really done. Not the fault of ISO registration. Auditors are keen to emphasize that you have to continually work at this and that it takes al ot of work to keep the systems in place.

There's been a recurring theme here--that ISO registration is a choice and if you don't like it, don't do it. But the obvious problem with that is that for the people who actually have to do the work, there is no choice--the registration process has been thrust upon them by people who don't want to be bothered with real leadership and doing the work needed to actually fix the problems that cause all of the trouble.Is this the problem, you want to fix quality and all the leaders want is for you to do the ISO paperwork?

We're seeing a lot of arm-waving here about the alleged benefits of registration, and no one is offering any evidence.

JCBodie's response:

No evidence that satisfies you, you mean. Again, I've already indicated that my clients (10yrs+ and not because of an outside customer demand) have measurables that tell them that ISO has CONTRIBUTED to the improved running of their company. Is that data published? Probably not. Why? Ever heard of not letting your competition know what you're up to, cause then they might do it to? If I was a company, using ISO, and I felt it contributed to my operations, I wouldn't necessarily tell the world. Maybe it's what's contributing to my competitive advantage. Bottom Line: No company has to/needs to brag about what ISO does (or doesn't do) for them nor prove it to anyone else, if they are personally satisfied. It's a choice...and you can choose not to participate, either by not using the Std. or using the Std., but not Registering or going for the whole enchilada.

How do you know, for example, that companies that were already performing better before registration aren't skewing the results?
[/list]

How do you know ANY company isn't skewing results, about their operations, period? Enron and some others got caught, but I'm sure there are a lot more out there that people buy stock in, based on the companies possibly skewed performance reporting. Additionally, this would be a tough statistic to publish for another reason: ISO may have CONTRIBUTED to the better performance, but the exact amount may be tough to estimate, since most companys have any number of initiatives going on, at the same time. If you're ill, and your doctor gives you some medicine and a change of diet, and you improve, how can you definitely say that what the doctor did was 100% responsible for your recovery? Maybe, that remarkable and resilient machine, called The Body, actually was the contributor.

I can't help it if you read things that aren't there. Can you show me where I've specifically poo-pooed the standard, as opposed to registration to it?


"On track" in what direction? Towards maintaining registration? How does that show the value of registration? You're arguing for the value to the registrar, methinks. Mr. Simpson's Circular Argument Detector should be sounding loudly right now.

I think the jury's still out on that question. How is being paid by the auditee not a conflict of interest?

But you do have a vested interest in keeping your customer happy, and the happiest customers are the ones who get registered. Look, don't get me wrong here--I'm not impugning your personal integrity, or that of any other individual. I'm questioning the integrity of the registration system.

Don't you have a vested interest in keeping your customer happy, when you make parts?

Like I've said all along...THIS IS A CHOICE. No one is saying you have to deal with the Standard or Registration and no one is forcing anyone to work for a company who deals with this, either.

I have been broadminded in my comments, allowing for both sides to have their beliefs and co-exist. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for you. If it makes you feel better, JSW05, YOU WIN!! I choose not to continue to have a circular volley with you, as I have better things to do...like audits, for customers who understand and appreciate the value of ISO AND the Registrar service. And, yes, you have attacked my personal integrity, but I'll get over it.

You wanted data, now you want to analyse the protocol. Is it the fact that the research doesn't fit your argument that causes the problem?
I haven't seen the data, Paul, all I've seen is a summary report. Do you think the summary is the data? Do you think that the methods used to gather and analyze the data are unimportant? I don't know whether the research fits my argument or not, although you seem to have accepted the summary out of hand, which is a curious strategy for a trained auditor to take.
Have you checked that protocol? There is plenty of empirical evidence that communism is the best form of government at the moment. I know it's a little while since Churchill died but ...
Paul, Paul, Paul. The fact that Churchill said that there is evidence for x doesn't mean that he believed that there was no evidence for y, or not-x. This is exactly the point I was trying to make--the Churchill analogy wasn't appropriate.

Interesting analogy. Taking Sidney's earlier point you assume there are half a million emperors around who have to be told they have no clothes. It is a shame they are all marching out of step with you.We're going to have to stop this if you're going to misinterpret or misrepresent everything I say. The "emperor" is ISO registration, not all of the ISO-registered companies in the world. The contention is that the registered companies are claiming to see clothing where none exists.

I don't agree. I don't see any confusion in my posts. I agree with little you say (but it causes me little angst). I am used to dealing with evidence all the time I audit and also when I (quite separately) consult. You seem to imply that this is a court of law and I am the prosecutor - hence with the burden of proof. In any argument the burden of proof is equally shared. Those wanting to convince the emperor that he is wearing no clothes probably have the first step to take.
Oh, my. Consider this little dialog:

Registrar: You should get ISO-registered because it will result in great
benefits for your company.
Me: Prove it.
Registrar: No, you have to prove that it won't.

Unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to personally conduct any research (certainly none that would meet your standards for a bullet proof protocol) to present to you. There is some research evidence around but if that is not acceptable all I can offer is anecdotal examples of where I have left a registered organization in better shape than before I went.
No one is asking you to conduct studies on your own. There would be no need to if there were reliable existing research, though, and there just isn't, as far as I know. Believe it or not, if I saw some, I would climb the highest tree in the neighborhood and A) admit that I was wrong, and B) encourage registration.

Is this the problem, you want to fix quality and all the leaders want is for you to do the ISO paperwork? I work in a pretty big company and I'm powerless to "fix quality" except on a very local level. I'm not affected here by ISO registration one way or the other, except for the occasional audit. You shouldn't assume that anything that I say is indicative of anything in my current position, unless I specifically say it is.

Oh, my. Consider this little dialog:

Registrar: You should get ISO-registered because it will result in great
benefits for your company.
Me: Prove it.
Registrar: No, you have to prove that it won't.



If that is an actuall conversation you had that is sad. I find it hard to swallow that a sales person for Registrar would not be able to give you the preceived benefits of registration. I know a couple registrar sales persons and they are very good at explaining what the benefits of registration would mean to your company.

Oh, my. Consider this little dialog:

Registrar: You should get ISO-registered because it will result in great
benefits for your company.
Me: Prove it.
Registrar: No, you have to prove that it won't.



If that is an actuall conversation you had that is sad. I find it hard to swallow that a sales person for Registrar would not be able to give you the preceived benefits of registration. I know a couple registrar sales persons and they are very good at explaining what the benefits of registration would mean to your company.
No, it was just an example. But your suggestion re: salespeople reminds me of a very old joke that seems appropriate here:

A man was driving through a rural area and stopped at an old country general store. Once inside, he noticed that there were 100-pound sacks of salt stacked everywhere--there were hundreds of them. The man said to the old proprietor behind the counter, "Gee, you must sell lots of salt here." The old man gazed around at all the stacks and replied, "No sir, we don't. But there's a salt salesman who comes in here, and he does pretty well with it."

No, it was just an example. But your suggestion re: salespeople reminds me of a very old joke that seems appropriate here:

A man was driving through a rural area and stopped at an old country general store. Once inside, he noticed that there were 100-pound sacks of salt stacked everywhere--there were hundreds of them. The man said to the old proprietor behind the counter, "Gee, you must sell lots of salt here." The old man gazed around at all the stacks and replied, "No sir, we don't. But there's a salt salesman who comes in here, and he does pretty well with it."


I was under the impression that was a conversation you had with a registrar, if not then what was the point of it??

I was under the impression that was a conversation you had with a registrar, if not then what was the point of it??
It was a (satirical) logical extension of the point that Paul was trying to make regarding burden of proof.

Oh, my. Consider this little dialog:

Registrar: You should get ISO-registered because it will result in great
benefits for your company.
Me: Prove it.
Registrar: No, you have to prove that it won't.


This would make a good Dilbert cartoon :lol:

This would make a good Dilbert cartoon :lol: A farcical dialogue that would be.

Check old news @ http://www.qualitydigest.com/nov96/newsdig.html#anchor960450

The mere fact that we, as a group are so divided speaks volumes. Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but when there is a divide this large, there is a problem.

WE REPRESENT THE QUALITY DISCIPLINE.

As far as my opinion goes, I base my beliefs on 15 years of ISO experience. I have taken 5 companies through the process from start to finish. With 2 of those companies I acted as a consultant. There were some good registrars, some not so good, but one thing was overwhelming, Not one of the registrations could actually hold water in terms of ROI. The absolute only benefits of hanging a cert on the wall were marketing, and customer requirement.

Some of the registrar auditors were actually very brilliant and had some great findings, but I have also heard a few nuggets of wisdom from the guy with a pint in his hand at the corner pub. The standard itself is fine, the registration side is a complete scam.

The statement I made before concerning virtually all companies passing their registration and virtually none losing because of an audit came from the ISO data, year 2000, and don't think you folks across the pond are any different, the results are the same. By the way, that's about the only data contained in this whole thread which is strange considering our discipline is so data driven.

Everyone keeps quibbling back and forth, but so far, it sounds like a bunch of sheep following along.

I for one would not put my money into something where everyone shared the same result (a certificate on the wall), regardless of effort.

You pay the bill, you get the cert, and oh, by the way, some of the time we are going to waste making "value added" observations that have nothing to do with the standard is not what I consider a savvy business investment.

Carl-

The mere fact that we, as a group are so divided speaks volumes. Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but when there is a divide this large, there is a problem. Agreed. I often think of guests visiting these pages. Do they even believe we are on the same planet - never mind the same page.

WE REPRESENT THE QUALITY DISCIPLINE. Agreed.

As far as my opinion goes, I base my beliefs on 15 years of ISO experience. I have taken 5 companies through the process from start to finish. With 2 of those companies I acted as a consultant. We all have varying levels of experience. It just seems to have lead to diametrically opposed views of the same thing. Is that because of the different experience or are a large proportion of us just plain wrong (On whatever side).

There were some good registrars, some not so good, but one thing was overwhelming, Not one of the registrations could actually hold water in terms of ROI. The absolute only benefits of hanging a cert on the wall were marketing, and customer requirement. Now we start to disagree. Either you have had a poor return or my experience of assessment and certification varies substantially from yours.

Some of the registrar auditors were actually very brilliant and had some great findings, but I have also heard a few nuggets of wisdom from the guy with a pint in his hand at the corner pub. The standard itself is fine, the registration side is a complete scam. I'll agree to disagree.

The statement I made before concerning virtually all companies passing their registration and virtually none losing because of an audit came from the ISO data, year 2000, and don't think you folks across the pond are any different, the results are the same. By the way, that's about the only data contained in this whole thread which is strange considering our discipline is so data driven. I don't think the side of the "pond" has any bearing. There are people over here criticizing ISO and registration in just as passionate terms. There are also people "over there" who support ISO and registration. Some people are leaving ISO, of those the majority voluntarily because they do not see the benefit or they think the effort required is more than they want to spend , some others are having their certification withdrawn.

Either way I am happy. If they leave voluntarily then they have made a positive choice about the direction their organization takes. If they have registration withdrawn then at least their registrar has the guts to put reputation above income.

Some of us are trying to make sure registration actually means something. In the last month I recommended one company have their certificate removed if they don't take specific action to address a hole that had appeared in their management system (and I will be back to check) and another is on special measures with a continuing assessment visit brought forward to ensure they make corective action in another (less serious) area.

Everyone keeps quibbling back and forth, but so far, it sounds like a bunch of sheep following along. Is that sheep on both sides?

I for one would not put my money into something where everyone shared the same result (a certificate on the wall), regardless of effort.

You pay the bill, you get the cert, and oh, by the way, some of the time we are going to waste making "value added" observations that have nothing to do with the standard is not what I consider a savvy business investment.

Carl- Again we will have to disagree. You see no value. People I work with see the value of an audit that is not totally confrontational and that gives them some food for thought.

For my part I am going to try and steer clear of adding further fuel to the flames by avoiding the circular arguments.

I will leave the forum battlefield bloodied but unbowed, reserving the right to post my views and looking forward to commenting on other statements on the cove.

Paul,

My reference to the "Pond" was a general one, but somewhat in reaction to Denis 9001 comments concerning ethics and methods in Thailand vs. the U.S.

I think the disparity exists in all countries.

Yes, I think there are "sheep" on both sides.

You would spend the money for your company to get registration, I on the other hand would use those $$ to make my system stronger, rather than have it audited by the 3rd party.

Forgetting who is "right or wrong" for a moment, I think the wide range of views and severely opposed parties amongst us reduces our credibility as a whole.

Thanks for your insight, your post was a good one.

Carl-

You would spend the money for your company to get registration, I on the other hand would use those $$ to make my system stronger, rather than have it audited by the 3rd party. Actually I voted no, I wouldn't go for registration.

It is quite a long time ago but I remember posting to the effect that there should be a third option - It depends what's in it for me.

If there is a marketing / customer driver then my company may go for it but the three directors here have over 55 years combined QA experience including systems development as employee and consultant, running operational arms of registrars etc. I am sufficiently confident (some say arrogant) that the "value add" we could get would be minimal. I know that sounds contrary to previous posts in this and other threads but that is the confidence / arrogance bit!


Forgetting who is "right or wrong" for a moment, I think the wide range of views and severely opposed parties amongst us reduces our credibility as a whole. Agreed. If the so-called experts can't agree then what hope is there for the people starting down the road.

Paul,
Forgetting who is "right or wrong" for a moment, I think the wide range of views and severely opposed parties amongst us reduces our credibility as a whole.
Carl-
Carl,
I always try to remember the quote I've seen attributed to George Bernard Shaw: When two men in business together always agree, one of them is unnecessary.

If there's wide disagreement here, I think it's more a reflection of the state of reality than anyone just arbitrarily gainsaying or arguing for the sake of argument. I think that in general, the Cove is a place where people can get widely accepted answers to questions, but it's also a place where experienced and passionate people discuss the vagaries of the profession, and there's always something to be learned from that as well.

In many cases, I would agree, there are many "Right ways" and many "wrong ways" to do something, but this is a bit different.

When a large population of the experts disagree with the current trend, there is a problem.

Personally, I believe it is because interpretation of the standard leads to a subjective opinion concerning a system that is supposed to be as objective as possible, but we will save that for another thread.

If a significant number of Quality practitioners, many of which are tasked with implementing ISO would not spend their own $ on registering to it, how useful a tool is it?

I guess you could make the argument that half of us do think it is valuable enough to warrant registration, but it seems ridiculous that so many companies are requiring suppliers to be registered. I think it has become an easy way for them to evaluate suppliers in accordance with ISO rather than doing something with actual merit. After all, we seem to agree that some registrars are better than others, but I have yet to find a customer that requires their supplier to be registered to a specific registrar or list of registrars.

The whole deal (registration) is pretty suspect.

Carl-

I find this topic quite enlightening. Lines seem well drawn between the aye and nay camps. I'm interested in the nay arguments since I may come across them in the real world (objection handling planning).

Notwithstanding the thread topic, I'm confused because we have 5 "elements" here.

(1) QMS - all seem to agree on this being a benefit
(2) ISO 9001 - ditto with the proviso it is a basic framework
(3) 3rd. party audits - confused. The nayes have made few comments on this.
(4) registration/certification - OK the disputed one.
(5) certificate implications - the conclusion people draw from certification, whether right or wrong. - There seems to be broad agreement here that too much is often inferred or claimed.

I don't understand the objection the nayes have to (4) given they largely accept 1-3.

What's the problem with having a certificate for anything. It's just a form of record to evidence something. You could have an Auditors Report which would be almost the same thing. People and companies have numerous certificates: Medical, Education, Vehicle Inspection, Project Completion, Boy scouts badge whatever.

It's up to the customer what he does with his ISO9001 certificate. Put it on the wall or file it with his equipment calibration certificates. When I go to a restaurant I don't expect a health & safety inspection certificate to be on the wall (maybe would be nice though) or them to proudly proclaim that the food is safe. But I would like them to have a certificate from an independant and accredited source so I can satisfy myself that I'm (probably) not eating dogmeat. I know the cook will assure me otherwise and hey the steak tastes great. I could inspect the kitchen myself (assuming I'm qualified) or survey other diners. Bottom line is it would give me a bit more confidence in a world where there are so many scoundrels about.

Certificate cost is not a factor since fees are mostly for auditors time. So yeah, if I've paid the bucks for a 3rd party audit the cents for the certificate is worth it.

As a newbie here can somebody give me the procedure to reply to posts with the original text snippet included.

Denis,

The probelm is #3 is too subjective, rendering #4 worthless.

Additionally, the new slant is to provide services in #3 that have nothing to do with #4.

So the person who gave the restaraunt the certificate may have spent some time looking at a better way to arrange the tables to get more people in the restaraunt, rather than what the source was for the steak.

Carl-

As a newbie here can somebody give me the procedure to reply to posts with the original text snippet included.
Have a look here: This List of vB Codes and How to Use Them (http://elsmar.com/Forums/misc.php?do=bbcode)

It looks like the original question got off track into a discussion of only registration pros and cons. There is a difference when it's your money for the process.

Carl,

OK I can see the logic of that argument. Really the issue is on the quality (value) of the audit. Few posts addressed that. Most focused purely on the certification.

If the audit is subjective that goes against auditing principles. A degree of discretion is allowed but the result should be the same from every auditor. I accept that theory and practice may not be the same.

Regarding observations, OFI's are not supposed to be an additional service but rather an improvement/extension on the current one.

Observations must be related to audited elements. So the auditor instead of just saying Yes/No should give suggestions for improvement. To use my restaurant example, if environment were being audited and the tables too close to each other (affecting diner satisfaction/waiter accessibility) it may not warrant a NCN but a mention and suggestion on methods for arrangement would be helpful to the client. If the auditor suggests how to pack more clients in to increase profit then that is unacceptable. The audit must be careful not to waste auditing time or engage in what may be considered consulting.

Registrar: You should get ISO-registered because it will result in great
benefits for your company.
Me: Prove it.
Registrar: No, you have to prove that it won't.


How about this dialog.

Supplier A: We have an effective quality system in place
Supplier B: We have an effective quality system in place
Customer: Prove it
Supplier A: You can take my word for it or come and spend a few days getting the proof yourself.
Supplier B: Our system has been audited by independent accredited auditors who also carry out regular surveillance visits. Here's a copy of their certificate. Your welcome to visit us as well.
Customer: Thanks Supplier B but the certifacte is worthless. I'd rather trust Supplier A and spend my time and money going to see for myself. Then I'll visit the other 100 suppliers who gave me the same answer as Supplier A did.

Carl, Thanks for the link on how to include quotes. Much appreciated.

Carl, Thanks for the link on how to include quotes. Much appreciated.

Sammy: You're welcome :rolleyes:

Ooops sorry JSW05, still undergoing my forum induction training and got names muddled. You can certify me when I'm competent. I'll put the certificate on my wall.

As a newbie here can somebody give me the procedure to reply to posts with the original text snippet included.
There are a number of threads in this Forum which should help you
New Members - Please Read - 'How To' in the Forums (http://elsmar.com/Forums/forumdisplay.php?f=86)

I find this topic quite enlightening. Lines seem well drawn between the aye and nay camps. I'm interested in the nay arguments since I may come across them in the real world (objection handling planning).

Notwithstanding the thread topic, I'm confused because we have 5 "elements" here.

(1) QMS - all seem to agree on this being a benefit
(2) ISO 9001 - ditto with the proviso it is a basic framework
(3) 3rd. party audits - confused. The nayes have made few comments on this.
(4) registration/certification - OK the disputed one.
(5) certificate implications - the conclusion people draw from certification, whether right or wrong. - There seems to be broad agreement here that too much is often inferred or claimed.

I don't understand the objection the nayes have to (4) given they largely accept 1-3.

What's the problem with having a certificate for anything. It's just a form of record to evidence something. You could have an Auditors Report which would be almost the same thing. People and companies have numerous certificates: Medical, Education, Vehicle Inspection, Project Completion, Boy scouts badge whatever.

It's up to the customer what he does with his ISO9001 certificate. Put it on the wall or file it with his equipment calibration certificates. When I go to a restaurant I don't expect a health & safety inspection certificate to be on the wall (maybe would be nice though) or them to proudly proclaim that the food is safe. But I would like them to have a certificate from an independant and accredited source so I can satisfy myself that I'm (probably) not eating dogmeat. I know the cook will assure me otherwise and hey the steak tastes great. I could inspect the kitchen myself (assuming I'm qualified) or survey other diners. Bottom line is it would give me a bit more confidence in a world where there are so many scoundrels about.

Certificate cost is not a factor since fees are mostly for auditors time. So yeah, if I've paid the bucks for a 3rd party audit the cents for the certificate is worth it.
There is a lot of difference in price between a 3rd party audit which acts as the auditee's ADVOCATE and gives direction on "curing" deficiencies and the 3rd party audit which results in a certificate of registration.

The guy who just comes in and measures your system as an audit prior to issuing a certificate of registration does NOT have the luxury of stopping in midstride to help you and your personnel understand how to cure a deficiency, yet he usually charges a higher price overall than an advocate auditor who cannot issue a certificate of registration.

Bottom line:
When folks say it's not about the money, it REALLY IS about the money.

Wes

I can't comment on prices much because the US marketplace is different from here. Here a cost analysis would show the bulk of certification cost is for consultants. A freelance auditor approached me recently touting for clients. He charged 20% more just to do a quality manual (probably a template) than I charge for assessment and certification.

The quality/value of consultants is different. Consultants are not accredited or subject to surveillance, anybody can set up shop as a consultant, It's up to the buyer to pick a good apple from the consulting barrel. Here many consultants:

1) Do not see their job as helping the client set up a good QMS but rather helping him to "pass" and what happens after he don’t care about.
2) Demand referral kickbacks from the registrar and recommend clients to use only the registrars who give kickbacks.
3) Recommend solutions to client which generate more chargeables for them.
4) Miss glaring (not nitpicking) conformity nonconformances
5) Use off-the-shelf template solutions because its easier and more profitable.
6) Recommend a pre-assessment costing the client more money, so as to be sure of a “pass” when it should be needed with an advocate internal audit..
7) Are not themselves ISO9001 certified or subject to audit.

I follow your argument about an "advocate auditor" and assuming it is a “good apple” consuiltant it’s valid. But you must accept there bad-apple template-farmer consultants as well.

You seem to be arguing that the conformity audit is deficient and an advocate audit is better. Really the advocate audit is a two-in-one service. Find then fix on the basis of the QMS and company needs. Assuming the consultant isn’t finding to generate more fixing work. The conformity audit is just a “find” against the audit criteria.

If the conformity audit also did the fix then it would not be considered as impartial and would not be allowed under accreditation rules. If CB’s were allowed to do that (I wish) it would make the consultants redundant.

Surely the internal audit is the time for your advocate audit. You seem to want to do away with internal audit and conformity audit and leave a 3rd party (is it third) done by a consultant. Fine if that’s what the company wants but then the whole idea of accredited certification goes. The company’s prospective customers would be in total darkness about company quality system, unless they knew the reliability of the unaccredited consultant of course. And he provided a certificate to say the system had been audited and was effective.

Wes

I can't comment on prices much because the US marketplace is different from here. Here a cost analysis would show the bulk of certification cost is for consultants. A freelance auditor approached me recently touting for clients. He charged 20% more just to do a quality manual (probably a template) than I charge for assessment and certification.

The quality/value of consultants is different. Consultants are not accredited or subject to surveillance, anybody can set up shop as a consultant, It's up to the buyer to pick a good apple from the consulting barrel. Here many consultants:

1) Do not see their job as helping the client set up a good QMS but rather helping him to "pass" and what happens after he don’t care about.
2) Demand referral kickbacks from the registrar and recommend clients to use only the registrars who give kickbacks.
3) Recommend solutions to client which generate more chargeables for them.
4) Miss glaring (not nitpicking) conformity nonconformances
5) Use off-the-shelf template solutions because its easier and more profitable.
6) Recommend a pre-assessment costing the client more money, so as to be sure of a “pass” when it should be needed with an advocate internal audit..
7) Are not themselves ISO9001 certified or subject to audit.

I follow your argument about an "advocate auditor" and assuming it is a “good apple” consuiltant it’s valid. But you must accept there bad-apple template-farmer consultants as well.

You seem to be arguing that the conformity audit is deficient and an advocate audit is better. Really the advocate audit is a two-in-one service. Find then fix on the basis of the QMS and company needs. Assuming the consultant isn’t finding to generate more fixing work. The conformity audit is just a “find” against the audit criteria.

If the conformity audit also did the fix then it would not be considered as impartial and would not be allowed under accreditation rules. If CB’s were allowed to do that (I wish) it would make the consultants redundant.

Surely the internal audit is the time for your advocate audit. You seem to want to do away with internal audit and conformity audit and leave a 3rd party (is it third) done by a consultant. Fine if that’s what the company wants but then the whole idea of accredited certification goes. The company’s prospective customers would be in total darkness about company quality system, unless they knew the reliability of the unaccredited consultant of course. And he provided a certificate to say the system had been audited and was effective.
I sympathize with your point of view, but the argument becomes circular when there are a number of organizations who are extorted to become registered by lazy or ignorant customers who would rather tick off a box on a form than send their own surveillance team to approve a supplier. Customers look for the most effortless way to get the customer's box checked off. Thus they resort to questionable auditors and "boilerplate" consultants to satisfy the registration requirement.

Incompetent consultants consider these desperate organizations fair game and flock to take advantage of them. Think of the incompetent consultants as purse snatchers. Purse snatchers would rather steal from defenseless old or handicapped women than from strong young women accompanied by a big, intimidating escort.

The best defense a desperate organization has against incompetent consultants is a strong, knowledgeable internal quality staff who look to consultants for additional knowledge and "tips," NOT for a "fast, pain-free template guaranteed to pass muster."

What appears to be needed are the following:
Smart, not lazy, customers who make it clear to suppliers they are interested first and foremost in good products and services, THEN they explain they intend to have their own or third party "surveyors" check to see they have a system in place that will give the customer confidence the supplier will deliver good products and services on a consistent basis because of the supplier's own internal checks and balances (internal audits?).

Next, we need a group of smart, flexible "surveyors" who can go into a supplier and determine whether the supplier has good products and services PLUS a system to assure consistent delivery of those "good" products and services.

Finally, if the supplier should fail to consistently deliver good products and services, the original surveyor should be dispatched to work with the failed supplier to see where they fell down on the job and help them recover.

Gee! What did I just describe? A supplier quality auditor who "approves" a supplier and takes action when the supplier slips up. The key is to look for a CURE, not a way to punish supplier or surveyor.

Wes

Far from it being circular I see the basis for convergence here. There are indisputably deficiencies in regsitrar auditing and certification. You appear to accept that consultants/surveyors are not without fault and not always a substitute for certification.

The scenario you use of the company being "extorted" by a lazy customer is harsh. Certification can be simply a filter (not substitute) to pre-qualify prospective suppliers. You (as most americans are prone) ignore international business. What will you do fly out to every supplier in Hong Kong who quotes a good price. And don't forget certification is often a government requirement for some business. Maybe shouldn't be but hey you got a democratic government yes.

Your "surveyor" system seems fine to me but your "flexible" surveyor seems to describe what the registrar auditors are doing (system and produict inspection).

Given I accept your surveyor system. That leaves us with the question (and maybe round the circle) of how do we know the surveyor did really check the products/system (certificate?) and how do we know the surveyor is competent (accredited?). I started a new thread on this topic.

I would suggest that its better to fix the problems with our current certification system rather than abandoning it and starting a new surveyor one (the Churchill democracy circle). The ISO organization and national accreditation bodies have a lot to answer for in my opinion by failing to address the many valid comments the "No's" have posted here in response to the poll.

1) Customer ignorance - informance the customer/supplier
2) Poor registrars - crack down
3) "Shark" consultants - accreditation scheme for consultants
4) Public misconceptions - inform the market
5) Different standard/requirments/certification for small companies (I think NZ has a scheme for this)
6) I see no reason why individuals (surveyors) cannot be registered and issue conformity certificates

Bottom LineSome form of certification will always be needed. Who issues the certificate and how confidence can be attached to the certification is the question. I think just as you correct deficiencies in a QMS rather than scrapping the idea of a QMS entirely is the way to go with accredited certification.

Incidentally my being with a registrar doesn't put me on the opposite side to you. The unethical practices of many registrars here is a problem for me and to be honest the way prices are I'd be better off doing consulting. I charge just under USD400 per man-day. The consultants charge 500 (and have 20 plus days in a project versus my 2). A temp secretary costs about 300. So my time and 30 years experience is worth 25% more than a 23 year old bimbo who types letters and knows MS-Word.

The scenario you use of the company being "extorted" by a lazy customer is harsh. Certification can be simply a filter (not substitute) to pre-qualify prospective suppliers. You (as most americans are prone) ignore international business. What will you do fly out to every supplier in Hong Kong who quotes a good price. And don't forget certification is often a government requirement for some business. Maybe shouldn't be but hey you got a democratic government yes.

Your "surveyor" system seems fine to me but your "flexible" surveyor seems to describe what the registrar auditors are doing (system and produict inspection).

Given I accept your surveyor system. That leaves us with the question (and maybe round the circle) of how do we know the surveyor did really check the products/system (certificate?) and how do we know the surveyor is competent (accredited?). I started a new thread on this topic.

I would suggest that its better to fix the problems with our current certification system rather than abandoning it and starting a new surveyor one (the Churchill democracy circle). The ISO organization and national accreditation bodies have a lot to answer for in my opinion by failing to address the many valid comments the "No's" have posted here in response to the poll.

1) Customer ignorance - informance the customer/supplier
2) Poor registrars - crack down
3) "Shark" consultants - accreditation scheme for consultants
4) Public misconceptions - inform the market
5) Different standard/requirments/certification for small companies (I think NZ has a scheme for this)
6) I see no reason why individuals (surveyors) cannot be registered and issue conformity certificates

Bottom LineSome form of certification will always be needed. Who issues the certificate and how confidence can be attached to the certification is the question. I think just as you correct deficiencies in a QMS rather than scrapping the idea of a QMS entirely is the way to go with accredited certification.

Incidentally my being with a registrar doesn't put me on the opposite side to you. The unethical practices of many registrars here is a problem for me and to be honest the way prices are I'd be better off doing consulting. I charge just under USD400 per man-day. The consultants charge 500 (and have 20 plus days in a project versus my 2). A temp secretary costs about 300. So my time and 30 years experience is worth 25% more than a 23 year old bimbo who types letters and knows MS-Word.
The proof (as an old saw goes) is in the pudding.

I don't see anything wrong with a 3rd party surveyor - no one need fly his own employee halfway around the world if a local, competent, RESPONSIBLE person is available. The crux of the issue is that the SAME person who "approves" a supplier is the one who is responsible for curing a problem if the "pudding" turns bad.

The essence of MY thinking is that the customer bears the burden of the cost of surveillance, NOT the supplier. With the customer paying, more emphasis would be on details that really matter to the supply chain versus "nonessential" details like number of man days per surveillance. Surely, we have all been in shops that run like a fine clock and which have a long unblemished record of turning out good products and services. They don't require anywhere near the surveillance time that some sweat shops and short-cut charlie places might.

The beauty is that the surveyor can stop the survey at the first whiff of bad practices without economic loss and shift the burden at that point to the supplier to clean up his act when the surveyor owes his allegiance to the ultimate payer and beneficiary of his surveillance - the customer. The surveyor can simply say to the supplier, "I have to put my reputation on the line (and my continued employment) to approve your shop. You aren't ready for me to approve. Once you are ready to approve and I DO approve you, then, if you start producing bad products or service for the customer, I will be the one to come back and help you find and fix the glitch or I will be the one to withdraw approval. If you have an adequate internal auditor system to make yourself ready for approval, odds are you will never have a glitch that requires me to return once you are approved."

Thus, the primary emphasis on the first look should be the products and services - do they pass muster? Next, at the controls which assure continued good products and services. Finally, at systems for innovation (improvement?)

The plain fact is many customers really are more concerned about the product or service they bargain for than about some vague "future improvement." Some customers, of course, are complete jerks and insist on annual "reductions" in cost from their suppliers while they continue to raise prices to their customers in a vain attempt to widen their own profit margins by taking from both their suppliers and the customers. The current morass of the American auto industry is proof that business model doesn't work.

I don't need a certificate for an inspector to tell me when a product is nonconforming. If a surveyor is approving suppliers who quickly end up in the "problem" category because of a falloff in quality of goods or services, I'd begin to suspect the quality of the surveyor, regardless if he had a certificate.

There are bad doctors, bad lawyers, bad accountants. They all were able to get a certificate at one time. Certification is not a guarantee! The proof is in the pudding.

Forest Gump's mom said, "Stupid is as stupid does!"

The proof (as an old saw goes) is in the pudding.]

When Nike make very good shoes with 10 year olds at their Pakistan factory you say "ah but the pudding is good" even though the customer is not satisfied using slave labor.

You seem to be talking about product conformity and QC inspection. Management systems is the forum topic.

I don't see anything wrong with a 3rd party surveyor - no one need fly his own employee halfway around the world if a local, competent, RESPONSIBLE person is available.
Agreed. Most registrars will offer unaccredited auditing services for the clients criteria and method.

The crux of the issue is that the SAME person who "approves" a supplier is the one who is responsible for curing a problem if the "pudding" turns bad.

Don't you call these types of audits second party. Third party conformity audits is not a substitute for second party ones. No argument about this.

When the organization supplies to many customers, all of whom send their own auditors/surveyors you end up with many people curing. Whose suggestion for cure should the organisation follow. Whose system is it. The organisations or the customers. Since you like old wives' maxims, tell me what happens to the pudding when you get too many cooks.

What authority does the surveyor have in the suppliers company. None so its hard for him to cure problems. But yes he can make suggestions for solutions.

The essence of MY thinking is that the customer bears the burden of the cost of surveillance, NOT the supplier.

So it's the customers job to check the quality of what he buys. Does the organization do an audit as well or not bother since the customer is doing the job for him.

With the customer paying, more emphasis would be on details that really matter to the supply chain versus "nonessential" details like number of man days per surveillance.

So you see no correlation between amount of time spent on a task and how well it is done. I agree it's not a direct ratio but to dismiss time spent as "nonessential" is ludicrous. At very least it is an indicator of audit reliability.

Surely, we have all been in shops that run like a fine clock and which have a long unblemished record of turning out good products and services. They don't require anywhere near the surveillance time that some sweat shops and short-cut charlie places might.

Correct. The amount of time to be spent on any audit must be planned and a consideration is performance history. Time must be justified.

The beauty is that the surveyor can stop the survey at the first whiff of bad practices without economic loss

That depends on the audit client's instructions. This method would probably result in the lenghty audit process. Audit-stop-fix problem-start-find next problem-stop-wait etc. And of course you miss linkage. The cause of problem in process A may be in process B.

and shift the burden at that point to the supplier to clean up his act when the surveyor owes his allegiance to the ultimate payer and beneficiary of his surveillance - the customer.

Shift the burden. Hang on didn't you just say it was the surveyor's responsibility to cure.

The surveyor can simply say to the supplier, "I have to put my reputation on the line (and my continued employment) to approve your shop. You aren't ready for me to approve.

Great this answers a previous post about why so few companies fail and echo what registrars do. You're not ready, fix the problems then we'll look again.

Once you are ready to approve and I DO approve you, then, if you start producing bad products or service for the customer, I will be the one to come back and help you find and fix the glitch or I will be the one to withdraw approval.

So the auditor doesn't just report findings and give recommendations. He's the judge, jury and executioner. I love the idea of the customer spending all this money on surveyors helping organizations fix their problems. I fear it would not happen though. Auditor observations/suggestions yes but that's as far as it goes.

If you have an adequate internal auditor system to make yourself ready for approval, odds are you will never have a glitch that requires me to return once you are approved.

Ah so internal audits are optional in your system.

Thus, the primary emphasis on the first look should be the products and services - do they pass muster?
Product Conformity Inspection

I don't need a certificate for an inspector to tell me ...
Do you need an audit report? I'm not sure Wes how you the top manager simplies looks at a product and know its nonconfoming. Can you do that with pharmaceutricals.

If a surveyor is approving suppliers who quickly end up in the "problem" category because of a falloff in quality of goods or services, I'd begin to suspect the quality of the surveyor, regardless if he had a certificate.

Another ISO9001 requirement out the window. No control for Human/Subcontrator competecy. You just do an analysis of delivered quality against surveyor approval. This argument defeats the object of prevention. The end-users have already bought (and won't buy again) the bad products from your organisation because you had no controls for the quality of the surveyor.

There are bad doctors, bad lawyers, bad accountants. They all were able to get a certificate at one time. Certification is not a guarantee!

True it's not a guarantee. But I'll hazard a guess there are less bad doctors with certificates than bad quacks without certificates. It's all about probability.

The proof is in the pudding.
I thought the opposite. Quality Assurance is all about not making the pudding at all if any of ingredients are bad rather than waiting till the product comes out of the oven to find out. You shouldn't need to taste the pudding if the cook, recipe, ingredients, utensils etc. are OK.

Forest Gump's mom said, "Stupid is as stupid does!"
You said it.

Wes, basically you are describing a second party audit against customer defined criteria with unlimited free supplier consulting thrown in. No problem with that at all. Now the organisation supplying 20 main customer has to accept 20 audits, get 20 auditor cures and then explain to 19 customers why he didn't implement their cure. The whole purpose of third party is to reduce the need for second party. That's not to say eliminate but rather to save time/resources by having a common accepted standard.

Not happy about your system though. Internal audit optional, human competency control depends on future puddings etc.

This thread has now reached a point where it's hard to tell what the discussion is about anymore, but there might be a point that's being missed here.
The whole purpose of third party is to reduce the need for second party.
The problem is that there is no good evidence to suggest that even second party audits are efficacious (i.e., effective in predicting supplier performance). We want to be able to use descriptive statistics for inferential purposes, which makes no sense whatsoever. So the question is not whether ISO registration adds value, or whether third-party audits add value (or whether they should add value); the question that needs to be answered is, if there is no reliable data to indicate that supplier evaluation systems make predictions of supplier performance possible, why do them at all?

The problem is that there is no good evidence to suggest that even second party audits are efficacious (i.e., effective in predicting supplier performance).

Wowee. You sound like a tobacco company needing then challenging statistics to evidence cigarettes are harmful.

Do you agree that planning and managing activities reduces the chance of mistakes?

Do you agree that checking things increases the chance of spotting mistakes?

If so then, irrespective of statistics, QMS's and IQA's must be good. How good is the question. I fear an accurate answer is impossible without looking at the business activity involved.

Wowee. You sound like a tobacco company needing then challenging statistics to evidence cigarettes are harmful.

Do you agree that planning and managing activities reduces the chance of mistakes?

Do you agree that checking things increases the chance of spotting mistakes?

If so then, irrespective of statistics, QMS's and IQA's must be good. How good is the question. I fear an accurate answer is impossible without looking at the business activity involved.
You need to read what I actually wrote. I didn't say that a quality management system isn't a good thing. I believe in apple pie and motherhood too. What I said was that there is no evidence whatsoever that any formal supplier evaluation system is capable of allowing confident predictions of supplier performance. And if you can't use a supplier evaluation system to predict supplier performance, what's the point?

When Nike make very good shoes with 10 year olds at their Pakistan factory you say "ah but the pudding is good" even though the customer is not satisfied using slave labor. Who said "no use of child labor could NOT be one of the criteria called for by the customer? There are some customers, believe it or not, who do NOT care about child labor. Different cultures and different strokes for different people.

You seem to be talking about product conformity and QC inspection. Management systems is the forum topic. The problem with a narrow view like that is precisely the point I try to make against the current 3rd party auditor system. Having a "system" does not guarantee good products or service, although folks rarely have good products and services without having a good system, neither is dependent on the other.

Don't you call these types of audits second party. Third party conformity audits is not a substitute for second party ones. No argument about this.

When the organization supplies to many customers, all of whom send their own auditors/surveyors you end up with many people curing. Whose suggestion for cure should the organisation follow. Whose system is it. The organisations or the customers. Since you like old wives' maxims, tell me what happens to the pudding when you get too many cooks.

What authority does the surveyor have in the suppliers company. None so its hard for him to cure problems. But yes he can make suggestions for solutions. The authority is simply the power to grant or remove approval as a supplier. Firing a supplier is one kind of "cure" - like cutting out a cancer!

So it's the customer's job to check the quality of what he buys. Does the organization do an audit as well or not bother since the customer is doing the job for him. Think about that for a bit. Currently, the third party registrar system requires auditee to have a system of internal audit in place. Why wouldn't that also be a criteria of a 2nd or 3rd party surveyor?
So you see no correlation between amount of time spent on a task and how well it is done. I agree it's not a direct ratio but to dismiss time spent as "nonessential" is ludicrous. At very least it is an indicator of audit reliability.Perhaps only "ludicrous" in your eyes. I have certainly been in organizations as a customer's auditor where I knew within 10 or 15 minutes whether the organization was going to pass or fail. Once I was high enough up on the totem pole in relation to the customer, I was able to make a snap decision and approve or reject without going through meaningless audit checks. Think of going to a restaurant as an analogy. You step into a place - it's dark and dingy with cockroaches fighting mice for greasy food scraps on counters and floors. Are you going to hang around long enough to look at the menu?
Correct. The amount of time to be spent on any audit must be planned and a consideration is performance history. Time must be justified. Sure, but the surveyor needs to have the flexibility to modify the plan based on conditions as he finds them.
That depends on the audit client's instructions. This method would probably result in the lenghty audit process. Audit-stop-fix problem-start-find next problem-stop-wait etc. And of course you miss linkage. The cause of problem in process A may be in process B.
* * * * * * * *
Shift the burden. Hang on didn't you just say it was the surveyor's responsibility to cure.

Great this answers a previous post about why so few companies fail and echo what registrars do. You're not ready, fix the problems then we'll look again.

So the auditor doesn't just report findings and give recommendations. He's the judge, jury and executioner. I love the idea of the customer spending all this money on surveyors helping organizations fix their problems. I fear it would not happen though. Auditor observations/suggestions yes but that's as far as it goes.

Ah so internal audits are optional in your system. I simply said the surveyor had the power and responsibility to "Cure" the problem. Sometimes that means cutting your losses and moving on to a new supplier. Suppliers are used to dealing with each customer as the judge, jury, and executioner anyway. Why is this so difficult to imagine? Certainly, customers have fired suppliers who had ISO registration. Why should this be so different?

Product Conformity Inspection

Do you need an audit report? I'm not sure Wes how you the top manager simplies looks at a product and know its nonconfoming. Can you do that with pharmaceutricals.
Although I can certainly do wet chemistry, run a mass spectograph or a CMM, I don't do that when I do a customer evaluation of a product on the supplier's site. What I do, however, is watch closely and ask questions as they do it, observing technique, reference to work instructions, and general condition of the instruments used. It is true in many instances, that customers do NOT have the capability to inspect a product as well as the supplier, but that doesn't preclude them from asking a trusted metrology lab to do it for them.
Another ISO9001 requirement out the window. No control for Human/Subcontrator competecy. You just do an analysis of delivered quality against surveyor approval. This argument defeats the object of prevention. The end-users have already bought (and won't buy again) the bad products from your organisation because you had no controls for the quality of the surveyor. I don't recall saying that human competency could NOT be one of the criteria, but prevention is under the control of the supplier. It is only one of the factors which go to make up whether a supplier can consistently deliver good products and services. I certainly expect customers to maintain a database of delivered quality from suppliers, with appropriate triggers to redeploy the surveyor when there is a falloff. As far as the controls for the quality of surveyor - anecdotal evidence here in the Cove suggests that at least several auditors in the current system have not delivered the kind of audit service promoted in the registrar's promotional literature. The plain fact is that any number of things can happen to derail an auditor from doing a good job, ranging from sheer incompetence to a bad travel day before arriving at the auditee.
True it's not a guarantee. But I'll hazard a guess there are less bad doctors with certificates than bad quacks without certificates. It's all about probability.Of course! You also don't see too many hospitals maintaining quacks on staff, regardless of their certification. As I suppose customers would not keep too many surveyors on staff or contract if the "approved" suppliers don't deliver good quality goods and services. I don't know, either, how one prevents having an auditor or surveyor who turns down good suppliers for some reason. But to concentrate on that would be too paranoid. There will always be some frauds who slip through the net.
I thought the opposite. Quality Assurance is all about not making the pudding at all if any of ingredients are bad rather than waiting till the product comes out of the oven to find out. You shouldn't need to taste the pudding if the cook, recipe, ingredients, utensils etc. are OK. We need to make a distinction here between the supplier who turns out an off-the-shelf product and one who turns out a custom product to the buyer's specifications. I have always used a different method to approve the custom supplier versus the off-the-shelf supplier. My experience is that most customers make a similar distinction.
Forest Gump's mom said, "Stupid is as stupid does!"


You said it.

Wes, basically you are describing a second party audit against customer defined criteria with unlimited free supplier consulting thrown in. No problem with that at all. Now the organisation supplying 20 main customer has to accept 20 audits, get 20 auditor cures and then explain to 19 customers why he didn't implement their cure. The whole purpose of third party is to reduce the need for second party. That's not to say eliminate but rather to save time/resources by having a common accepted standard.

Not happy about your system though. Internal audit optional, human competency control depends on future puddings etc.I once had occasion to consider buying a large industrial building for my own company. The seller did not have an independent appraisal, but I was aware another potential buyer had paid an independent appraiser to prepare a report on the property. I went to the same appraiser and bought an appraisal report (at full price.) The fact the appraiser merely duplicated his original appraisal and changed the cover sheet didn't faze me one iota. Similarly, I would expect that 3rd party surveyors working a geographic territory or an industry-specific market would be able to do the same for their customers. It is up to the customers whether to deal with that or to ask for special extras that would require a resurvey of the supplier. If suppliers aren't prepared to deal with multiple and duplicative surveys, they probably don't want the business from the customer. I remember dating a girl 40 years ago who lived in a singles apartment complex. There were two bars in the same block. One owner used to open and close at his own whim, while the other kept steady hours, day in, day out. Which one do you think got more business from the singles? Understand that the supplier doesn't have to get "cure" visits unless HE screws up. Seems like a good incentive to tend to business on a regular basis, doesn't it? Once approved, rarely does there have to be a second approval unless there is some change (ownership, product line, falloff in delivered quality, etc.)

Personally, I find the poll too black-and-white. My vote would be for "Depends on the circumstances."

Would I implement a Business Management System? YES.

Would I register to ISO 9001:XXXX? Depends on the circumstances. Customers may call for it...Customers may not. If I was only able to maintain my profit margin because the Customer's required it, I would go for it.

Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto.

Intresting discussion, I had recently been putting into place a ISO 9001:2000 Business Management System for our new manufacturing company and I was called into a BOD meeting this week and was told to not to seek certification of the system.

The BOD decided that they wanted the Business Management System in place but did not need an external source to certify their systems. Is this becoming the norm now with companies in my ASQ meetings I'm hearing similar talk?

Best regards,
al40

Intresting discussion, I had recently been putting into place a ISO 9001:2000 Business Management System for our new manufacturing company and I was called into a BOD meeting this week and was told to not to seek certification of the system.

The BOD decided that they wanted the Business Management System in place but did not need an external source to certify their systems. Is this becoming the norm now with companies in my ASQ meetings I'm hearing similar talk?

Best regards,
al40

I do not know if this is becoming the "norm." I do have a few clients that want to implement a business/quality management system based on ISO 9001:2000; they do not seek registration of their system. No demand, do not see the value of having the certificate. I can't argue....:nope:

Stijloor.

I agree with the general idea here but as many have said; "it depends". The actual process of first time certification I believe is a good method for any business to really look at their company systems and to make improvements. After that step there are many variables that could change my decision; management involvement, customer demands that are over and above the actual certification standards, is it necessary to keep the business the company needs to be successful and so on.

Most customers will buy my products because the price is right, the quality is what they expect and the delivery is on time; not because I am certified to ISO/QS/TS etc, etc. In my opinion all the various certifications haven't lived up to the hype. The money could be better spent in other areas rather than surveillance audits to keep then cert. on the wall.

tlonkey

There is no correlation between Certification and Quality of the product a company manufactures.

I always find it strange when someone determines that a suppliers certification is an excuse to not evaluate a supplier. The cert only states you have a system not how it is used.

I have walked into two positions where the ISO certification was nothing more then a rubber stamp with a few minor nonconformances. In one of these companies 50% of audit time was spent between the tees. One of these companies had a million dollars worth of returns the month before I began but was certified since 99 definetly a source of honor :rolleyes:.

In 1994 when I started implementing system the registers were a different breed. My first auditor was also a laywer and he new it backwards and forwards. His first gap anylsis blew me away with detail. It took me two months to get everything corrected.

When our company was purchased we decided to pass on certification and adhere to compliance. This has allowed us to focus more of our time on problem solveing rather than document controls.

[QUOTE]
I have walked into two positions where the ISO certification was nothing more then a rubber stamp with a few minor nonconformances. In one of these companies 50% of audit time was spent between the tees. One of these companies had a million dollars worth of returns the month before I began but was certified since 99 definetly a source of honor :rolleyes:.


A very unusual situation. In my opinion, most poor audits are a result of lack of skill, not fraudulent behavior.




In 1994 when I started implementing system the registers were a different breed. My first auditor was also a laywer and he new it backwards and forwards. His first gap anylsis blew me away with detail. It took me two months to get everything corrected.

When our company was purchased we decided to pass on certification and adhere to compliance. This has allowed us to focus more of our time on problem solveing rather than document controls.


Much has changed, improved and grown since 1994. Many companies benefit a lot from their programs and certification, (yes, Jim). However, many haven't. I guess it hinges on what they do with the tools. The program itself, is not a panecea.

Intresting discussion, I had recently been putting into place a ISO 9001:2000 Business Management System for our new manufacturing company and I was called into a BOD meeting this week and was told to not to seek certification of the system.

The BOD decided that they wanted the Business Management System in place but did not need an external source to certify their systems. Is this becoming the norm now with companies in my ASQ meetings I'm hearing similar talk?

Best regards,
al40


The benefit of a good external audit on a regular basis, is it gives life to the system. Without that, there would have to be an enormous amount of support and willpower on the part of top management. It can be done, but I have not seen many succesful examples.

The benefit of a good external audit on a regular basis, is it gives life to the system. Without that, there would have to be an enormous amount of support and willpower on the part of top management. It can be done, but I have not seen many successful examples.Even before I had joined The Cove, Marc had inserted one of my responses to the Jennejohn discussion list as a thread here (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=1770). The way I see it, without the "friendly pressure" of being audited, discipline to maintain and improve processes would tend to be lost. Upper management would pay even more lip-service to quality and having nobody to keep them accountable. In a perfect World, we would not need audits, IRS, final exams, driver's tests and many more "verification activities".

On the other hand, it would be foolish to try to establish that the management system certification industry has proved it's value. The results are all over the place. From certificates being "bought" to earned. Nobody has established a correlation between certification and system performance.

The one paragraph that, in my opinion, sums it up the best is the one offered by Mr. Simon Feary, posted here (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=173591&postcount=34) and repeated below:Free markets, an over-abundance of providers and the voluntary nature of certification have allowed short-term commercial interests to exploit opportunities offered by naive markets and complicit or disinterested governments. But put another way, simply and bluntly, accreditation has failed to do its job adequately and the certification product has leaked credibility.

E la nave va....

The one paragraph that, in my opinion, sums it up the best is the one offered by Mr. Simon Feary, posted here (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=173591&postcount=34) and repeated below:
Quote:
Free markets, an over-abundance of providers and the voluntary nature of certification have allowed short-term commercial interests to exploit opportunities offered by naive markets and complicit or disinterested governments. But put another way, simply and bluntly, accreditation has failed to do its job adequately and the certification product has leaked credibility.



The data is certainly clear that this is the case. But, what is not clear, is what percentage of the fault lies at the feet of the buyers, and what is the fault of the providers.

The data is certainly clear that this is the case. But, what is not clear, is what percentage of the fault lies at the feet of the buyers, and what is the fault of the providers.

Is it fair to say: "It takes two to tango?"

Stijloor.

The data is certainly clear that this is the case. But, what is not clear, is what percentage of the fault lies at the feet of the buyers, and what is the fault of the providers.
It would be pretty tough to collect data about this, I think.

Stijloor's reply:
Is it fair to say: "It takes two to tango?"Maybe not in every case. From anecdotal evidence, I conclude that a clever and unscrupulous quality system administrator has a good chance of putting a sham over on most auditors. I think three factors tilt the field in favor of shady operators:

- The sampling nature of audits
- The brevity of audits
- The auditor has to rely on the organization for information

I'm sure there are examples to the contrary, but I have seen this kind of situation play out, sometimes for years.

The way I see it, without the "friendly pressure" of being audited, discipline to maintain and improve processes would tend to be lost. Upper management would pay even more lip-service to quality and having nobody to keep them accountable. In a perfect World, we would not need audits, IRS, final exams, driver's tests and many more "verification activities". Interesting point. I have been reading Peter Senge's Fifth Discipline and he talks about commitment (to anything) with the example of speed limits. Commitment is only complete if you would drive at that speed even if the limit wasn't there. How many organizations could we say that about when it comes to ISO? You only have to look at the discussions here on the cove to see attitudes to ISO requirements:
Can I exclude it?
What is the minimum I have to do to satisfy the requirement?


On the other hand, it would be foolish to try to establish that the management system certification industry has proved it's value. The results are all over the place. From certificates being "bought" to earned. Nobody has established a correlation between certification and system performance.As one of the guilty parties :) I can agree. The task is too great. It would be great to be able to show you make a difference but where would you find the control group? Jim Wynne would love for this kind of statistical analysis! :lol:

E la nave va....:confused: Translation please for us ignoramuses (ignorami?)

E la nave va....



:confused: Translation please for us ignoramuses (ignorami?)

And the ship sails on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_the_Ship_Sails_On)...

Stijloor.

Interesting point. I have been reading Peter Senge's Fifth Discipline and he talks about commitment (to anything) with the example of speed limits. Commitment is only complete if you would drive at that speed even if the limit wasn't there. How many organizations could we say that about when it comes to ISO? You only have to look at the discussions here on the cove to see attitudes to ISO requirements:
Can I exclude it?
What is the minimum I have to do to satisfy the requirement?

People want to exclude because they don't see the value of the activity.

Wanting to do the minimum to satisfy the requirement is not good. But wanting to get the maximum benefit for the minimum effort is healthy.

A lot of the things done in the name of ISO involve lots of effort and formality but little tangible benefit.

I left it for a while to see if anyone else wanted to come in but as they haven't I'll wade in again. :D
People want to exclude because they don't see the value of the activity.Is this a) the activity of complying with ISO as a whole or b) the requirements of a particular clause because the response is different. If it is a) then really they should get another job because once it is in there's only one person going to be asked to maintain it. :lol:

Wanting to do the minimum to satisfy the requirement is not good. But wanting to get the maximum benefit for the minimum effort is healthy. I accept the difference. If all you are doing by doing the minimum is pay lip service to a requirement then again you are taking value from the system rather than add to it.

A lot of the things done in the name of ISO involve lots of effort and formality but little tangible benefit. Now if you mean that some people in implementing a system to get through ISO certification do the wrong thing and add no benefit then we are in total agreement.

I can't, however, think of one requirement from the standard that adds no value, can anyone?

I left it for a while to see if anyone else wanted to come in but as they haven't I'll wade in again. :D
Is this a) the activity of complying with ISO as a whole or b) the requirements of a particular clause because the response is different. If it is a) then really they should get another job because once it is in there's only one person going to be asked to maintain it. :lol:
Joining you in laughter.:lol:

From what I've seen, it's b).


I accept the difference. If all you are doing by doing the minimum is pay lip service to a requirement then again you are taking value from the system rather than add to it.

Now if you mean that some people in implementing a system to get through ISO certification do the wrong thing and add no benefit then we are in total agreement.Yes, if wrong thing includes systems that are too complicated, bureaucratic, labor intensive over-engineered, over-documented or any combination and/or permutation of the above.


I can't, however, think of one requirement from the standard that adds no value, can anyone?Me either. That said, I can think of at least one situation where the cost of complying with an element of the standard exceeded the value derived from compliance with that element. I believe I could come up with a handful if I really thought about it a lot.

The benefit of a good external audit on a regular basis, is it gives life to the system. Without that, there would have to be an enormous amount of support and willpower on the part of top management. It can be done, but I have not seen many succesful examples.

... without the "friendly pressure" of being audited, discipline to maintain and improve processes would tend to be lost. Upper management would pay even more lip-service to quality and having nobody to keep them accountable. In a perfect World, we would not need audits, IRS, final exams, driver's tests and many more "verification activities".


I have been reading Peter Senge's Fifth Discipline and he talks about commitment (to anything) with the example of speed limits. Commitment is only complete if you would drive at that speed even if the limit wasn't there. How many organizations could we say that about when it comes to ISO?

I agree with you all. I could count on the fingers of 1 hand the very few organisations who were actually functioning at a minimum level required by ISO 9001 without being certified. A tiny number out of all the organisations and systems I've looked at. Whereas I've also come across many who claimed to 'have ISO 9001 systems' ... Which has invariably, in my experience, actually translated into zilch. As in: 'Oh yeah, we do the occasional bit of it but we drop off/ignore all the bits we don't wanna bother with, including anything requiring any kind of rigour, records, doc control, etc etc, let alone strategy, objectives, management review, audit, systematic approaches to NCF, corrective/preventive action, etc, etc.'.

If all you are doing by doing the minimum is pay lip service to a requirement then again you are taking value from the system rather than add to it.

Ooh, very true. Garbage in, garbage out. How anyone expects to get anything more out than they are willing to invest, is quite beyond me. I think that only works in winning lotteries. And look at the odds of that coming off.

I can't, however, think of one requirement from the standard that adds no value, can anyone?
Nope. Me neither. Not one. :nope:

Yes, if wrong thing includes systems that are too complicated, bureaucratic, labor intensive over-engineered, over-documented or any combination and/or permutation of the above.

BUT that is not the fault of the Standard. The causes there can include failure to understand it, failure of implementation, failure in systems design, even failure in mental capacity... it should not be laid at the feet of the Standard itself.

There are some truly awful drivers on the roads here. They're obeying the road rules... but they're still damned awful drivers. That's not the fault of the road law!

All that said, I too wish there was more/better objective data around to demonstrate the value added (or not, if so be it), and assist in improvement.

...

All that said, I too wish there was more/better objective data around to demonstrate the value added (or not, if so be it), and assist in improvement.

I tell clients that well crafted metrics - measuring every process in a meaningful way (cl 4.1.c and e) - are the best way to achieve that.

I tell clients that well crafted metrics - measuring every process in a meaningful way (cl 4.1.c and e) - are the best way to achieve that.

Quite. But I was referring to information in the public domain - ie, good data available to third parties to demonstrate (or not).

There seems to be a distinct shortage of solid data in the form of reports based on sound research, etc. to show that. It's something many people have an interest in - ie, what have other organisations achieved?

Quite. But I was referring to information in the public domain - ie, good data available to third parties to demonstrate (or not).

There seems to be a distinct shortage of solid data in the form of reports based on sound research, etc. to show that. It's something many people have an interest in - ie, what have other organisations achieved?


Industry Week puts out some industry benchmark data. And, the PMA association collects data on some of its members. It would be nice if there were more, but it is out there. Unfortunately, most is not free.

Industry Week puts out some industry benchmark data. And, the PMA association collects data on some of its members. It would be nice if there were more, but it is out there. Unfortunately, most is not free.

And even more unfortunately, much of it is unreliable. Unless you're looking at the financials of a publically-traded company, there's just no way to verify the claims of any company that says that ISO registration helped them to increase profitability. And even with publically-held companies you still face the burden of demonstrating a causal link.

I voted no.
I agree that a well designed and mantained ISO9001 system is worth the effort. Registration is ... something else. I've seen audits from two different important european certification companys, in three different audited companyes. I won't name them, so don't ask. Pains me too say that the audits were worthless. I could spot 10 important non-conformances in 1 hour where they didn't see 1. Last audit (in the company where I'm currently employed) was like 7000euros. They've seen non-conform material lying around unmarked. They've seen negligence, people unaware of what ISO means, not knowing what procedures are, etc. But turned a blind eye, 'cuz in 2 weeks certification would have expired. No time to correct anything. My boss and I explained to them that if they withdraw our certification we would do re-certification with another company. So ... They didn't see a thing.
I only hope that's the Romania's tradition. If the same thing is universaly accepted then certification is worthless.

Pains me too say that the audits were worthless. I could spot 10 important non-conformances in 1 hour where they didn't see 1. Last audit (in the company where I'm currently employed) was like 7000euros. They've seen non-conform material lying around unmarked. They've seen negligence, people unaware of what ISO means, not knowing what procedures are, etc. But turned a blind eye, 'cuz in 2 weeks certification would have expired. No time to correct anything. My boss and I explained to them that if they withdraw our certification we would do re-certification with another company. So ... They didn't see a thing.
I only hope that's the Romania's tradition. If the same thing is universaly accepted then certification is worthless.

Though I'm sure some instances of corruption occur I am also sure that such instances are highly uncommon. Additionally most companies will be audited by their clients as well, who would not turn a blind eye to a poorly executed QMS. I work for the aerospace industry however, so it could be different in other industries. For our part we are very much aware of our role in flight safety and we take every measure to ensure we meet or exceed the quality standards of the industry.

As far as registrars go, if it was my company, yes I would spend the money on ISO 9001 registration. I would also ensure that investment worked for me by enhancing my QMS, not just buying a peice of paper on the wall.

.... My boss and I explained to them that if they withdraw our certification we would do re-certification with another company. So ... They didn't see a thing.
...

Sounds like you are complaining out of both sides... complaining that auditors are not writing things, but threatening to fire them if they do...:mg:

I agree, auditors should provide value. most of the ones I know, do.

My boss and I explained to them that if they withdraw our certification we would do re-certification with another company.Sounds like you are complaining out of both sides... complaining that auditors are not writing things, but threatening to fire them if they do...Good point, Helmut. The auditors can claim incompetence and a "desire to satisfy the customer" as an excuse. Dan and his boss deliberately and inappropriately pressed the audit team to skew the audit results. What is their excuse?

Obviously the audit team should have not accepted the undue pressure. Maybe the auditors were coerced by a flagrant display of weapons. After all, HiroMatsu's quote is 8. Drop ISO. Hold people responsible for their actions/product with a gun.:biglaugh:

But, and, on a more serious note, this just exemplifies that both misguided registrants and auditors contribute to the lack of credibility on Management System Certificates.

Good point, Helmut. The auditors can claim incompetence and a "desire to satisfy the customer" as an excuse. HiroMatsu and his/her boss deliberately and inappropriately pressed the audit team to skew the audit results. What is their excuse?

Obviously the audit team should have not accepted the undue pressure. But this just exemplifies that both misguided registrants and auditors contribute to the lack of credibility on Management System Certificates.I would add here the pressure put upon suppliers by customers who prefer to have a slip of paper from a third party to performing their own investigation. It seems to me suppliers might be less lax in maintaining their QMS if the folks who actually give them business were making the audit. Of course, corrupt individuals are also found at the customers (and even among government regulators!)

My boss and I explained to them that if they withdraw our certification we would do re-certification with another company. So ... They didn't see a thing.While I understand the flak flying from the great and the good of the certification world ..... :D

Perhaps there is a little more relevant information:
The fact you have outstanding noncompliances at the time of certificate expiry doesn't (under ISO 9001) prevent your certification being reissued
Under accreditation rules outstanding major noncompliances prohibits certification transfer
If your CB withdraws your registration then you have to go back through the whole of the certification process with whichever CB you choose
The fact that HiroMatsu's company has exerted pressure on the CB is (of itself) no excuse. A CB has to be impartial and unswerving (hark at me and my quoting 17021 - next thing you know I'll be joining an AB! :lol: ). I've been there and it's not nice but you explain beforehand what you're going to do and then stick to it. Nobody said this was all a bed of roses!

I think if the polling is with regard to implementing a quality management system I would say yes, “THUMBS UP!” :agree1:
raffy:cool:

As far as registrars go, if it was my company, yes I would spend the money on ISO 9001 registration. I would also ensure that investment worked for me by enhancing my QMS, not just buying a peice of paper on the wall.

Well said. I second, third and fourth what you say. :applause:

Part of my job here was to prepare the re-cetification audit, and I had to do it in 3 month. The QMS was in pretty bad shape, they had no quality manager for half a year. I realy haven't had the time to do it properly. So when I saw the opportunity I took it. It's wrong, and I know it. Next year will be properly prepared and will not need to use such tactics. But I always exploited weaknesses were I could find them.
I think that certification system itself is flawed. Too many certification bodys. Too little constraints. Too little public knowledge about ISO system. Name one reason why I can't create a company with no acreditation at all and emit certificates for few $$$. Make huge profits selling printed paper. And none could do anything about it.
Most people have no idea how ISO system works, at least here in Romania. To them printind "Quality assured by certified ISO 9001 system" on a label means quality. They don't ask "by who?", "who accredited them?", etc. They don't even know that "ISO 9001" doesn't mean my products are better than others. Even my boss thinks that "ISO 9001" is a marketing tool. He wants it because it looks good to customers.
:mad:It makes me mad:mad: 'cuz I realy believe that ISO 9001 is a good management system.

I would spend my own $$ for it. This is one of those areas that "you get what you pay for". I would agree to the point of not spending the money if your auditor comes in and simply goes off an audit check list staying in one room for the whole audit, but often times I have had many customers with long standing quality systems come back and thank me after their last audit. I have had several occurrences where my auditors have brought a value to their system that no one in the company was aware of. One of my auditors saved a company over $400k a year due to one of his suggestions for improvements. This was a company that has been ISO certified for sometime and the quality manager was also not new to the business. Often times when you are looking at the same system day in and day out its easy to have certain items become overlooked or forgotten as well as just not known. Sometimes a new set of eyes from someone experienced in various industries can really help make improvements. The money and time saving suggestions can easily pay for the cost of certification.

The added support from your auditor can also really help quality managers make some changes with upper management.

One of my auditors saved a company over $400k a year due to one of his suggestions for improvements.


Isn't this a violation of auditor ethics, to make suggestions for improvements? Or was this not in an audit?

Just curious, as I'm taking the CQA exam soon and all the materials I've been studying say that this is a no-no for auditors...:notme:

Isn't this a violation of auditor ethics, to make suggestions for improvements? As long as the auditor reported something as an OFI (opportunity for improvement), this is not a conflict of interest nor ethical breach. It is a value added audit. Going beyond conformance. It happens. But, that is obviously not the norm.

If an auditor could regularly spot (and report) this type of substantial savings, in a few days s/he spends with the companies they audit, it would lead me to ask:

1. should the company request the auditor to spend 3 (or more) times the minimum number of audit days on-site? If s/he can find this type of savings in 1 day, imagine how much more we could save if the auditor "resides" here?
2. should management of the company award themselves "The Nobel Prize in Incompetence"? If an outsider can spot such savings in a couple of days, what is management doing there?

As long as the auditor reported something as an OFI (opportunity for improvement), this is not a conflict of interest nor ethical breach.

But we don't know if it was reported as an OFI or as a nonconformance.

It was reported as an OFI. The savings in this instance was a result of auditing a warehouse that was previously never audited by prior auditors. I don't want to go into to much detail about the audit, but the savings was due to how the company ships product.

For our company it is truely an investment in marketing, not quality. If customers were not requiring registration, the powers that be would not pay for it and I see their point. If I were the owner and had poor quality and no real system of management or control I would probably hire a consultant or read about what successful companies (Toyota) are doing and follow along as best as I could. BUT, only if I could reap a true payback such as reduced internal costs or increased business would I pay to be certified or registered with anything. One thing though, I am constantly reading about how LEAN is saving and saving and saving companies money and improving their bottom lines while helping to grow the business. I have NEVER read anything about how ISO has saved a company.

In my company of 30 people we have 29 who view ISO as a burden and 1 person tagged with keeping it going. We really don't get it here. The previous owner liked to say you could be ISO certified and still build an ancor that won't sink.

Also, many of our customers just use ISO as a check off on their supplier requirements but never take any time to come and see if we are actually doing what we say. Before ISO, we had dozens of audits from our customers, now we have NONE! ISO either is so good there is no need for verification, or, ISO is making business lazy and impersonal. I think it is making business very impersonal as my only contact with our customers Quality departments is when they request a copy of our latest cert or only to correct issues and problems. We used to see each other annually and there would be pats on the back for a good job when they came to do their own audits and found everything in good order. Oh well.

For our company it is truely an investment in marketing, not quality. If customers were not requiring registration, the powers that be would not pay for it and I see their point. If I were the owner and had poor quality and no real system of management or control I would probably hire a consultant or read about what successful companies (Toyota) are doing and follow along as best as I could. BUT, only if I could reap a true payback such as reduced internal costs or increased business would I pay to be certified or registered with anything. One thing though, I am constantly reading about how LEAN is saving and saving and saving companies money and improving their bottom lines while helping to grow the business. I have NEVER read anything about how ISO has saved a company.

In my company of 30 people we have 29 who view ISO as a burden and 1 person tagged with keeping it going. We really don't get it here. The previous owner liked to say you could be ISO certified and still build an ancor that won't sink.

Also, many of our customers just use ISO as a check off on their supplier requirements but never take any time to come and see if we are actually doing what we say. Before ISO, we had dozens of audits from our customers, now we have NONE! ISO either is so good there is no need for verification, or, ISO is making business lazy and impersonal. I think it is making business very impersonal as my only contact with our customers Quality departments is when they request a copy of our latest cert or only to correct issues and problems. We used to see each other annually and there would be pats on the back for a good job when they came to do their own audits and found everything in good order. Oh well.

Interesting point of view, billmeye.

I guess all that I could say is that if a business utilizes ISO9001:200x to it's full potential it can provide a ROI. Think about continually improving your processes, which in turns create efficiency. Thereby creating costs savings (bottom line). If your processes are efficient, don't you think that there would be a ROI?

Your right if the ISO template is what gets and keeps your processes efficient. What if you only made the initial investment but did not subscribe to follow up maintenance audits and independently maintained your system? Is that impossible? Does it always take external eyes to provide the proper critique?

Anyway, we used to get that follow up from our customers and at least that provided contact and interaction which is something I miss in this increasingly distant business world we live in.

<SNIP>
I have NEVER read anything about how ISO has saved a company.

In my company of 30 people we have 29 who view ISO as a burden and 1 person tagged with keeping it going. We really don't get it here. The previous owner liked to say you could be ISO certified and still build an ancor that won't sink.

Also, many of our customers just use ISO as a check off on their supplier requirements but never take any time to come and see if we are actually doing what we say. Before ISO, we had dozens of audits from our customers, now we have NONE! ISO either is so good there is no need for verification, or, ISO is making business lazy and impersonal. I think it is making business very impersonal as my only contact with our customers Quality departments is when they request a copy of our latest cert or only to correct issues and problems. We used to see each other annually and there would be pats on the back for a good job when they came to do their own audits and found everything in good order. Oh well.Thanks for your views. I LOVE the "anchor" line. I will be using it frequently unless a miracle occurs and ISO registrants and their registrars make a big change from the status quo.

Your comment about [possibly] lazy customers substituting a supplier's ISO certificate of registration for a real analysis and evaluation of a supplier is really a function of ignorance on many levels of what a certificate really stands for. I have met many folks over the years who were convinced registrars were anointing certificate holders as the "best of the best" - a misconception aided and abetted by the registrars in misleading marketing pitches for their services when they implied certificate holders deployed "world class quality based on an International Standard".

You rightly bemoan the loss of customer contact and interaction. I empathize with your frustration.

The question remains:
"What can we [quality professionals] do to convince our customers and bosses to change the status quo?"


What changes would be most beneficial in assuring a certificate holder ACTUALLY had a quality operation where customers and regulators could feel confident the certificate holders were, indeed, the best of the best?

Would we have some provision which brought the concepts of partnership and interaction between customer and supplier into the relationship?

Boy that would be great if somehow in the ISO requirements was a requirement to visit your vendors (or at least the one's that exceed a certain threshold of business interaction, whatever criteria that would be) within the 3 year cert period. That would make relationships a little more personal and give some meaning behind the registrations.

Your right if the ISO template is what gets and keeps your processes efficient. What if you only made the initial investment but did not subscribe to follow up maintenance audits and independently maintained your system? Is that impossible? Does it always take external eyes to provide the proper critique?

Anyway, we used to get that follow up from our customers and at least that provided contact and interaction which is something I miss in this increasingly distant business world we live in.

If you don't maintain the level of Registration (the standard), it will be pulled, therefore, causing the business not to be registered. Which could cause the loss of Business revenue (affect the Bottom line). Without the Customer you have no Business. So the choice belongs to the organization.

Well, for the external eyes thing...I feel that someone, outside of the organization, will see the weakness and strengths that some companies wouldn't or don't want to see with their own eyes.

Here's the thing...for some reason ,if a person inside a company wanted to unilaterally implement a comprehensive quality system, they would be tarred and feathered. But, if someone outside the company (consultant, customer , auditor - take your pick) tells management to jump, they ask how high. Pathetic, but true.

If I was an owner, I would hope I could facilitate an implementation without outside overhead auditing costs (unless I needed it as a marketing tool). But, as a quality professional, I will only work at companies that are required to be certified. Fewer petty battles that way - focus more on 'just doing it'. :cool:

DMorin in his 10/14 posts and Coury F in his 12/11 post, have well-taken points.

This posting has been beaten to death and the same people in favor of ISO support it; those who are not, denigrate it. Ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

As far as billmeye, etal., that is certainly one way to look at things. I certainly would agree that some companies do ISO for less than stellar reasons. That is their choice, really. They don't understand what they may be missing. But, one of the ways to calculate any ROI, etc., was actually part of billmeye's original message. Calculating the time saved in not putting on the "dog and pony shows" (i.e. customer visits), including how much prep time is taken away from actually running the business, is one measurement, isn't it?? The fact that your customers presumably allow your 3rd party registrar to do the auditing, saves them money, too. It wouldn't make alot of sense, to me, to have them come in and audit, if your Registrar is already doing that.

The quality area (including ISO) has always been a tough one to fairly and completely quantify savings in...afterall, if you set up a preventive action program to insure product is not recalled, how would you calculate that which has never happened and how much the savings would be?? This is always the argument when management talks about the cost of prevention (which ISO could be considered part of), if nothing has happened, not realizing that the reason it may not have happened is precisely because you spent money on prevention. Also, I know many companies do not want to publish savings/financials (of any kind) as this gives the competition key information, that can hurt said company.

Without intimately knowing your company, I do think part of the reason your ISO process may not be delivering in your eyes, is because of your comment that 29 see it as a burden (pity the poor soul who's charged with making it happen). In particular, if you all don't "get it" as you say, then at least part of the blame has to be laid at the feet of your management.....which has absolutely nothing to do with the ISO Standard. By the way, your previous owners' "anchor" story is entirely correct. However, in a situation like that, you won't be in business very long anyway, ISO registration or no ISO registration, so it's really a poor argument against ISO.

Yes, some companies do see it as a marketing tool and yes, some companies are doing this only because a key customer has made it a requirement to do business with them. However, in the last 7 yrs of 3rd party auditing, I have seen quite a different trend: more smaller/medium-sized companies seeing value in the ISO Standard adding infrastructure and organization to their (typically) home-grown culture and less "I have to do this to get the orders" attitude. From what I can tell, many of the companies that "had" to do this at one point, have not maintained registration, once they have a real choice. But there are plenty left, who choose to continue. I say that's a good thing. It leaves 3rd party auditors, like myself, the best possible customers to work with: motivated, interested in improvement and valuing what the ISO Standard's structure can help them to achieve. I'm very fortunate in having a great client base to work with, which exhibit these traits. It doesn't sound like your company fits this description.

My condolences to your 3rd party auditor.

I think this sentence nails it:
We really don't get it here.

Not 'getting it' and then blaming problems on the 'it' that you don't get? The mind boggles. :bonk:

The previous owner liked to say you could be ISO certified and still build an ancor that won't sink.
A very good illustration of not getting it.

The progressive and successful organisations that I see do get it. They don't do certification just because they 'had to' - they do it because they saw good reasons for doing it, and they have reaped benefits from it. The ones who don't get it and then blame ISO for their failure just add to the problem and the negative stories.

This saying comes to mind: It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

It certainly ain't the Standard. It's all in how it's done (or not done!). Someone else pointed out that its underlying principles, for example, are quite simple. The magic is in the real understanding and application. And I'm fortunate enough to work (mostly) with the best organisations: interested, motivated, and extracting value from it. Those who do, get all sorts of things, like jcbodie says. And they aren't the same things you describe.

Anyone who 'could be ISO certified and still build an anchor that won't sink' certainly doesn't "get it". An owner espousing that view is a good indication of the prevailing attitude toward it.

This posting has been beaten to death and the same people in favor of ISO support it; those who are not, denigrate it. Ad nauseum, ad infinitum.I thought this was a great post ... and that's the point. Even though we have all been going round the houses, taking positions and arguing our own corners for a long while every so often there is a post that makes at least one visitor to the cove sit up and think - hey that's good! Over time we all get to find one or two of those and that's why we keep coming back. :bigwave:

As far as billmeye, etal., that is certainly one way to look at things. I certainly would agree that some companies do ISO for less than stellar reasons. That is their choice, really. They don't understand what they may be missing. But, one of the ways to calculate any ROI, etc., was actually part of billmeye's original message. Calculating the time saved in not putting on the "dog and pony shows" (i.e. customer visits), including how much prep time is taken away from actually running the business, is one measurement, isn't it?? The fact that your customers presumably allow your 3rd party registrar to do the auditing, saves them money, too. It wouldn't make alot of sense, to me, to have them come in and audit, if your Registrar is already doing that.Agreed. The purpose of the system has changed from what the standard developers intended. ISO keep banging on about it, we on the cove are saying the same thing - The standard was not developed for certification, it was developed as a model for a quality assurance system - to manage and assure product quality. As a secondary aspect it could be used with independent assessment to show capability.

The problem is now when someone says 'ISO 9001' most people hear the word 'certificate' after it.

The quality area (including ISO) has always been a tough one to fairly and completely quantify savings in...afterall, if you set up a preventive action program to insure product is not recalled, how would you calculate that which has never happened and how much the savings would be?? This is always the argument when management talks about the cost of prevention (which ISO could be considered part of), if nothing has happened, not realizing that the reason it may not have happened is precisely because you spent money on prevention. Also, I know many companies do not want to publish savings/financials (of any kind) as this gives the competition key information, that can hurt said company.IMHO the problem is that if an organization has a mature quality management system in place including measures of cost of quality then implementing a system to include ISO 9001 requirements is unlikely to generate any (additional) savings - as the existing systems will already be 99% ISO 9001 compliant.


Without intimately knowing your company, I do think part of the reason your ISO process may not be delivering in your eyes, is because of your comment that 29 see it as a burden (pity the poor soul who's charged with making it happen). In particular, if you all don't "get it" as you say, then at least part of the blame has to be laid at the feet of your management.....which has absolutely nothing to do with the ISO Standard. By the way, your previous owners' "anchor" story is entirely correct. However, in a situation like that, you won't be in business very long anyway, ISO registration or no ISO registration, so it's really a poor argument against ISO.Now this is an old chestnut - the floating anchor / concrete life preserver argument has been around for years and has largely been debunked - but still it lives on like many urban myths. :nope:

Yes, some companies do see it as a marketing tool and yes, some companies are doing this only because a key customer has made it a requirement to do business with them. However, in the last 7 yrs of 3rd party auditing, I have seen quite a different trend: more smaller/medium-sized companies seeing value in the ISO Standard adding infrastructure and organization to their (typically) home-grown culture and less "I have to do this to get the orders" attitude. From what I can tell, many of the companies that "had" to do this at one point, have not maintained registration, once they have a real choice. But there are plenty left, who choose to continue. I say that's a good thing. It leaves 3rd party auditors, like myself, the best possible customers to work with: motivated, interested in improvement and valuing what the ISO Standard's structure can help them to achieve. I'm very fortunate in having a great client base to work with, which exhibit these traits. It doesn't sound like your company fits this description.

My condolences to your 3rd party auditor. Good attitude from a 3rd party auditor. It got me thinking. Why do we expect AB auditors to make a difference, or CB auditors. Where the cove has to start is at the quality professional - the system implementer. These are the only guys / gals who can make a difference. More later ? ....

Thanks everyone for the comments. Paul, I'm new to these thoughts, as are so many others, and it's good that you say it's still a value to continue these dicussions, maybe not for the veterans, but for us novices.

JCBodie, I liked your thoughts regarding a possible ROI by time saved not needing to perform multiple customer audits. For a big company that is propably true, but, I'm always skeptical regarding time savings as a ROI since nobody is that efficient or overburdened that 10 or 12 days a year couldn't be devoted to some face to face time with customers.

I'm not new to ISO, have been involved to some degree for 12 years and have had the Management Rep position for 6 years, but I am a novice when it comes to delving deep into the meaning behind the clauses and impressing upon people there value. It's one thing to write the procedures to cover the clauses, see that forms and records are used and perform internal audits. It's another to work them into the operation so they have the intended value, especially when those around you just view things as unnecessary burdens. Forms and records and paperwork and the constant working to improve things just don't float most people's boats. It seems to become an afront to their character or a challenge to their autonomy.

It's great to see this forum for discussions and I look forward to hearing all of the great experience and wisdom that is out there because for many of us it's like being on an island within your own company. Thanks for staying involved.

Paul, thanks for reminding us all of this - it almost needs to be tattooed on the cover of the Standard! (bolding mine) The standard was not developed for certification, it was developed as a model for a quality assurance system - to manage and assure product quality.

That's why I voted No in the poll. But if the poll had asked something like: 'would you spend your own $$$ for a quality management system using the ISO 9001 model', I'd have voted Yes in a heartbeat. (I already have - the management system I use in my business does use it, because it's a good model.)


As a secondary aspect it could be used with independent assessment to show capability.

The problem is now when someone says 'ISO 9001' most people hear the word 'certificate' after it.

Indeed. And in response to jcbodie's excellent post, you raise a really good question (as so often):

Good attitude from a 3rd party auditor. It got me thinking. Why do we expect AB auditors to make a difference, or CB auditors.

Why indeed? Why expect an outside party whose primary responsibility is to audit to make a difference in a certified organisation, where for example, the prevailing attitude is 'this is a waste of time'? That's about as close to my definition of a no win situation as can be. On occasion I've come across a client/potential client whose top management has this attitude - you should 'do it to us'. Now unless they're really willing and open to thinking and change, I've found it just doesn't work. If there's an heavily entrenched 'waste of time' attitude, coupled with a lack of leadership on quality from the top, we'll part company. Some things just can't be done.

Where the cove has to start is at the quality professional - the system implementer. These are the only guys / gals who can make a difference. More later ? .... Why just the 'quality professional'? Isn't that still seeing quality as the job of the 'QP' rather than everyone's? How can we get to where it needs to start from - the top?

I'm not new to ISO ... but I am a novice when it comes to delving deep into the meaning behind the clauses and impressing upon people there value. It's one thing to write the procedures to cover the clauses, see that forms and records are used and perform internal audits. It's another to work them into the operation so they have the intended value, especially when those around you just view things as unnecessary burdens.
Very true. I particularly feel for you if just about everyone where you work feels it's a waste of time. I have worked with many people who started off with that attitude - when I was hired at one firm, the 2 owners and the GM all had that one, and had already failed in their certification attempts a couple of times!

But I've also managed to turn it around on many occasions (including in that job) by

keeping the system and its doco as simple and practical as it could possibly be and
focussing on the real underlying purpose and value of the Standard, interpreting and applying its requirements into the business/organisation language at hand; emphasising the 'sheer good management sense' of the ISO model.


I try never to say or have the 'we have to do this because ISO says' point of view for example. Instead, I suggest thinking about why the Standard would have that particular requirement in there. Which turns it around to no, we don't just do this 'because ISO says' but because doing this is critical to a sound system of quality management as it's good risk management/good practice/safer/faster/better (whatever applies). And choosing relevant examples from the organisation to illustrate. I think it's a fundamental difference in viewpoint.

That said, I have also failed at times. And it took me a while to develop the wisdom to decline or disengage from the situations that just didn't have the preconditions required for success/change, and thus were doomed to failure from the outset ('we just have to have the certificate to hang on our wall'). It's still a fine line to determine when change can be effected, and when it can't. But a boss/owner with the attitude you mention would be a major warning flag to me (good that he's former!)

It's great to see this forum for discussions and I look forward to hearing all of the great experience and wisdom that is out there because for many of us it's like being on an island within your own company. Thanks for staying involved.
Yes, I agree and thanks you to you too! It's good to discuss and debate these things. :thanx: