There is another thread regarding the success ratio of registration upon the First Audit. Presently, there are 42 out of 42; i.e., all respondents made it on the first try.

I personally know of more organizations that did not make it on the first try than otherwise, and added my ‘two hundredths-of-a-dollar’ to that other thread. But what I consider to be the burning question has not be answered, or perhaps, has not been properly asked:

How many organizations fail (major nonconformities cited) the audit, whether it be the first audit, and require subsequent audits? Better yet, how many never make it at all after several tries?

As far as I am concerned, polling here (Elsmar forum) to get the answer is about as significant as trying to determine the percent of the population that is overweight by sampling the runners in the Boston Marathon, if you get my drift.

Is there a way to get an idea of the number of failures?

Alex

Alex,
I have not even heard or come across with any organization that failed the first audit or the registrar has to come for an additional audit before recommending for registration.

These incidents could have happened when the ISO standards were first released back in late 80s or after a Major Update like 2000. During these periods, even the auditors also have difficulty in interpreting the standard and try to be too strict. As more articles and papers are published on interpretation, implementation strategy, auditor/ Client organization gets more experience and this initial failure rate start to reduce rapidly and become very few.

Many organizations take a “Risk Free” Pre-assessment approach before the audit. Even the results turn out terrible; this will not affect the registration process. Many findings are exposed at this stage and organization has the opportunity to delay the Registration audit until they close the Major findings.

Iam not sure as to why you are looking for this data. However, if you had a valid reason, talk to your registration auditor, they may informally provide an approximate figure of this data.

Regards,
Govind.

I have helped about a hundred organisations get certified. The only one that got a major on the first audit was one that had a pre-assessment where the auditor never left the meeting room the whole day-waste of time and money. We managed to fix the NC in a couple of weeks without a follow-up audit.

I think there are a lot of companies that go down the road of getting certified but convince themselves that they are not ready and never go for it.

The worst that can happen is that they get a major, know exactly what to do to get certified, fix it and move on.

The company where my wife works, and I prefer to not divulge the name, have been audited more than once to become ISO 9001 certified prior to 2000, and didn't make it. They have several locations, and all are certified, except the headquarters (guessing around 500 employes), which is where my wife works.

One of the engineers I used to work with, worked for a company that tried it, again prior to 2000, and had a major nonconformity (I don't know whether more than one) and never made it; although my friend did not know how diligently, if at all, they pursued it after the first audit.

The reason I am asking is twofold.
1. Attempting to convince a company (one guess?) that given proper effort, support, and envolvement, the company can attain and maintain ISO 9001:2000 certification. That is, they are (were) not the only company that did not get recommended upon the first audit, and that is OK.
2. Debunk several comments I have heard to the effect that the certification doesn't mean a thing - why everyone makes it on the first try, and you can even hire a consultant and a registrar that will guarantee certification.

In other words,
1. If indeed there are companies that require more than one audit, as I am rather certain there are, what percent of all audited companies do they represent, approximately?

2. Of the companies that have been audited but had major nonconformities cited, what percent didn't follow up to correct the issue(s)?

Again, I believe that conducting the survey among the companies represented in this forum is not representative of the population.

Alex

Better yet, how many never make it at all after several tries?There must be at least one more category: It is inevitable that some organizations (for whatever reasons) throw the towel in before they reach that first audit. How many? We'll never know...

/Claes

Is there a way to get an idea of the number of failures?

Alex

I do not know the answer to that. But, not enough applicants are failed.

If failure was more common, the certificate might be respected more as it would then denote real accomplishment.

As I observed elsewhere, if a certificate is to be used by a customer wanting assurance that its supplier has met a standard, it is most disingenuous to provide one when there are issues outstanding i.e. CAs which deal with infractions of the supposed "standard".

The only right approach, IMO, is fail one part, fail the lot. You have not met a standard when you have not met some part(s) of it. The only honest alternative is to issue a certificate stating the applicant has met XXX standard with the exceptions of clause(s) YYY. But, in this day and age, what applicant or sales department wants to present THAT truth to its customers?

Since two of the most prominent arguments put forth years ago supporting the idea of "registration" or "certification" (call it what you want), were that multiple assessment would become unnecessary and the customer would have the type of assurance sought inferred by the certificate issued by an unimpeachable, independent "third party", there should be no other way.

But, considering present day needs and realities facing the firm, neither of those promotional arguments holds water. And we all know it.

I have to question the statements concerning the number of companies that "Fail" registration.

First, we have absolutely no numbers to support that a significant number of companies do, or do not fail their first attempts. Of the ones that do "fail", are the companies that have a "Major" and answer via e-mail or fax with a corrective action, followed by the cert being sent included in this number?

Second, the last actual number I saw concerning REVOKED registrations (passed initial registration, certificate later revoked) was over 47,000 certificates issued, 27 (that's correct, twenty seven) revoked, but admittedly, this was several years ago. This data (U.S. data) was provided by a publishing company that I had to BUY the report from.

Which brings me to a very good point concerning this:

WHY DO WE NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE NUMBERS?

ISO does not track them (I called Bienne Switzerland)
RAB does not track them (I called them)
ANSI does not track them (Yep, called them too!)
ASQ does not track them (no surprise there)

I am willing to bet that the number of companies that fail registration completely (Requiring a total re-audit) is almost insignificant (less than .5 of a percent)

Do I have data to back this up? No, and nobody else seems to either.

I think there is a very good reason that they (ISO/ANSI) does not provide the data.

If we, as one of the strongest Quality communities do not have access to this information, then we MUST question the integrity of the process altogether.

Carl-

Hi All,

Here comes the cynic. The reason you won't see the numbers is probably because they do not exist or will be bad for their businesses. These so called 'independent' certifiers are first and foremost in a business and their business relies on customers and if they do not (eventually) pass your company you are more than likely to try another company or give up. Either way they are going to dip out on revenue and that is NOT going to happen. Their KPIs will dictate that they must attract and retain business. As long as there is no legislation dictating that a company must be certified then registrars are going to be between the proverbial rock and you know where because business growth and professional pride are going to override the requirement to cancel certification or not certify at all.

Bring it on........I'm expecting it. (I might require help Randy)

Earlier, I wrote (in part)
One of the engineers I used to work with, worked for a company that tried it, again prior to 2000, and had a major nonconformity (I don't know whether more than one) and never made it; although my friend did not know how diligently, if at all, they pursued it after the first audit.
I spoke with my friend last evening, and he told me that the company stuck with it and finally made it, rather recently, but it took four visits by the auditors. He did not have any details as to who the registrar was or what sort of majors had to be corrected.

Anyway, this is not a big deal - I just thought that perhaps, since ISO requires that 'records be kept', perhaps they kept track of the number of majors issued during assessments. Perhaps they do, but as has been suggested, these may be well guarded statistics.

Another thought - Is it possible, and would it be within the 'rules', for a registrar not to report when majors are encountered and instead wait until these are cleared up to submit the recommendation?

Oh well, as I said... no big deal.

Alex

Earlier, I wrote (in part)


Oh well, as I said... no big deal.

Alex

Alex,

In my experience I have found that a lot of smaller companies (widget manufacturers) start down the path of certification as a "cheap" way to avoid all the "annoying" customer audits, or because a customer strongly recommends it. Once the company gets to the point of the audit and major non-conformances, they choose to cut their losses and just deal with the customer inspections.

If a company does not need to meet a regulatory requirement for a quality system there is little incentive to pursue certification. Why would a company pay to fail an audit and fix systems that they aren't required by law to have?Unless a company has a major customer that suddenly requires certification, there isn't a good reason to continue the process through to failure.

Just my take on things,
LSL

WHY DO WE NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE NUMBERS?

ISO does not track them (I called Bienne Switzerland)
RAB does not track them (I called them)
ANSI does not track them (Yep, called them too!)
ASQ does not track them (no surprise there)


Carl-

This is amazing to me that these organizations do not track such things. But I guess I should not be amazed. :bonk:

Ingeniero,

Your claim of a registaration that required 4 audits just blows me away. I am not suggesting you are being untruthful, but how could a company possibly go through an audit, receive Majors, and call the auditors back in without fixing the problem?

Two things come to mind:

1. Your freind is mis-informed and/or does not understand the process. Maybe he is not communicating the actual situation. Were the first audits pre-assessments?

2. Your freinds company is run by rubes and the registrar knows it so they give a major, come back next time and say "OK, you fixed that, now we found this, see you in 90 days"

You seem to be the only person I know that has experienced a company that did not pass registration, and you know 2 companies that didn't (Your wife's and your engineer friend).

Incredible!

Carl-

I had a friend who was quality manager at an auto plastics house. His company failed the first QS audit when one of the managers said he delegated his quality responsibilities. The auditor stopped the audit and walked out, according to my friend. They did get registered on the next visit.

This was sometime in the mid-1990's.

Ben

Karl,
ISo took over the monitoring of certifications from a private organisation several years ago, and ISO write:
ISO does not itself issue certificates of conformity to ISO 9000 or ISO 14000. This is carried out independently of ISO by certification bodies in different countries. Therefore, there is no “official” central database of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 certificates. However, ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 are two of our best known families of standards and ISO constantly receives requests for information on their implementation
worldwide, which is what led ISO to undertake this regular survey as an information service.

The withdrawn certificates in some subsequent years are the same because ISO sometimes gets no figures for this, and they simply use the number from the previous year!

Ilias

Ilias,

The whole thing smacks of corruptness and hypocrisy.

On the one hand you have this "International Quality Organization" with various Technical Committees, Standards, joint efforts with other organizations etc., all presented with an air of professionalism and technical savvy beyond reproach, and on the other side you have a document that is widely "Interpreted", no evidence to support that the certifications you give are worth a plug nickel, no data to back up the number of registrations or revocations and their only defense is "Oh, well WE do not issue the certifications, that is done by independent bodies" who apparently can do whatever they want because their is no central controlling body!

The fact that they do not issue the certificates does not prohibit them from tracking the numbers! How hard could it possibly be to have a central registry? I could do it in real time on my laptop!

Seriously, would you put up with a similar situation if we were talking about your childs education? How about the medical care given to an aging parent?

Someone please answer me this:

Where in the ISO registration process does ISO, RAB, IRCA, or ANYONE else adhere to 8.2.1 and 8.4? I'm not talking about a satisfaction survey the registrar auditor hands you and collects before he/she leaves, I'm talking about real data. Because so far, I'm not seeing any data on customer satisfaction or any other continual improvement efforts on their part.

Carl-

Okay all, I have a question on this same matter. What does it take for a registrar to take the registration from a company? Say Major non-compliances, Category 1, 2 or 3's?

Okay all, I have a question on this same matter. What does it take for a registrar to take the registration from a company? Say Major non-compliances, Category 1, 2 or 3's?
What a wonderful question. Who knows what is the answer. After all, as other Covers have observed, little enough happened after hundreds of people were either killed or injured by the BF tire blow-outs. Tires made at a registered plant at that. Yes, I believe the actual plant was closed - but I am not aware there was any rush to withdraw BF registrations.

If death and injury are insufficient, you do ask a wonderful question. Perhaps the answer is - "they did not pay the invoice so we withdrew their registration."

I still notice trucks, shingles, letterheads still bearing ISO9002 logos from our biggest certifying body in Australia.

Is this happening in America too?

I think a good amount (10% ?) of certified companies didn't go through with upgrade to 9001:2000.

If assessors are "allowing" companies to parade certification to an obsolete standard I don't find it hard to believe that they consider a customer is a customer.

I still notice trucks, shingles, letterheads still bearing ISO9002 logos from our biggest certifying body in Australia.

Is this happening in America too?

I think a good amount (10% ?) of certified companies didn't go through with upgrade to 9001:2000.

If assessors are "allowing" companies to parade certification to an obsolete standard I don't find it hard to believe that they consider a customer is a customer.
That, Mike, raises some interesting questyions:

If customers or the public really knew or cared about their actual or potential suppliers showing registration to an outdated standard, would they not comment? Or could it be that no one really takes much notice or cares anyway? Or is it that all attempts at updates are rather irrrelevant to the general public and customers anyway?

Is it actually possible to fail an not get certified?

My assumption was that if you pay the money, you will get certified (perhaps with improvements required) provided you at least produce the required paperwork.

My assumption was that if you pay the money, you will get certified (perhaps with improvements required) provided you at least produce the required paperwork.Just like every student that attends a private school/college is promoted to the next grade, irrespective of their academic performance? :sarcasm:

I still notice trucks, shingles, letterheads still bearing ISO9002 logos from our biggest certifying body in Australia.

Is this happening in America too?



Indeed, there is a large trucking company (the parent is going through 'tough times') and they still have ISO 9002 on their trailers. However, does it say anywhere that the company must repaint the 'logo' every time the standard goes through a revision? Who'd be the brave auditor who'd raise an issue with a major customer over the trailers bearing the 'wrong issue' of the standard - hardly a document control finding, is it?:notme:

Indeed, there is a large trucking company (the parent is going through 'tough times') and they still have ISO 9002 on their trailers. However, does it say anywhere that the company must repaint the 'logo' every time the standard goes through a revision? Who'd be the brave auditor who'd raise an issue with a major customer over the trailers bearing the 'wrong issue' of the standard - hardly a document control finding, is it?:notme:

There's a Chrysler engine plant (now scheduled for closing) here where I live that just recently (in the past six months or so) took down a prominent "ISO 9002 Certified" sign on one of its buildings.

Is it actually possible to fail an not get certified?

My assumption was that if you pay the money, you will get certified (perhaps with improvements required) provided you at least produce the required paperwork.

Of course it is! And the stated assumption is, like many, incorrect.

Certification has little to do with just producing 'required paperwork' (whatever that is). Certainly some documentation of processes, procedures and records is required. Indeed, organizations receive certificates when they need to perform corrective actions - nothing said a system had to be 'perfect'. It's in the nature of continuous improvement, after all....

Furthermore, unless an organization - having been audited and, perhaps with major system issues - cannot be certified even if they do pay for the audit up to that point. They will (normally) be required to submit actions and evidence of effectiveness, before a certificate is issued.

BTW - Americans have an expression regarding 'assumptions'. Do they have a similar one in your country?;)

Of course it is! And the stated assumption is, like many, incorrect.

Certification has little to do with just producing 'required paperwork' (whatever that is). Certainly some documentation of processes, procedures and records is required. Indeed, organizations receive certificates when they need to perform corrective actions - nothing said a system had to be 'perfect'. It's in the nature of continuous improvement, after all....

Furthermore, unless an organization - having been audited and, perhaps with major system issues - cannot be certified even if they do pay for the audit up to that point. They will (normally) be required to submit actions and evidence of effectiveness, before a certificate is issued.

BTW - Americans have an expression regarding 'assumptions'. Do they have a similar one in your country?;)

Assumption is the wrong word.

I have been led to believe by various companies that have offered to certify our business, that provided I have the necessary documentation (6 core procedures, quality manual, records) and I have at least done some audits on major issues and at least 1 management review, I will not have any problems at all meeting their minimum requirements to certify our business.

This is why the perception that it is a load of wank is true.

I will tell you next after our audit how correct my ASS YOU ME's were.

Is it actually possible to fail an not get certified?.............

From a user's point, I think its the other way round. If you do your work, it is quite impossible for you to fail. The reasons are:

1. There's a 2 stage audit now. You don't fail in the first stage - you will be assessed on whether you are ready for the next stage or not. If you are not ready, you will be told to beef up the weak areas. If you know how to ask, you can get a lot more helpful infos.

2. Checklist are available for you to see if you had covered all grounds (adequacy check).

3. Facilities such as this forum are available for you to clear any doubts.

4. If you are using the service of a Consultant, they'll make sure you are ready. If you are going it alone, you would normally have the required training and thus have a good handle. Most important is that QMS are not really a big deal - common sense and good practices and if you take the time to think and plan, there shouldn't be problems.

5. Meeting the minimum requirements and be certified in the process is simple. Having an effective system is the challenge.

From a user's point, I think its the other way round. If you do your work, it is quite impossible for you to fail. The reasons are:

1. There's a 2 stage audit now. You don't fail in the first stage - you will be assessed on whether you are ready for the next stage or not. If you are not ready, you will be told to beef up the weak areas. If you know how to ask, you can get a lot more helpful infos.

2. Checklist are available for you to see if you had covered all grounds (adequacy check).

3. Facilities such as this forum are available for you to clear any doubts.

4. If you are using the service of a Consultant, they'll make sure you are ready. If you are going it alone, you would normally have the required training and thus have a good handle. Most important is that QMS are not really a big deal - common sense and good practices and if you take the time to think and plan, there shouldn't be problems.

5. Meeting the minimum requirements and be certified in the process is simple. Having an effective system is the challenge.

Thanks Harry, this is the basis of us going for an audit.

My argument with senior management is that having ISO certification does not mean there is quality in processes and outputs.

Getting Management to commit to the QMS model is the biggest challenge.

I work for a big government organisation and the recommendation from an audit was to get this area of the organisation ISO certified...under the assumption this would guarantee that there was quality and control in the processes.

The main motivation here is not to actually have some quality about what we do...it is merely to get a tick in the box to close out the audit recommendation so line managers all the way through to senior management get their payrise.

A complete waste of time as far as I am concerned, but I was allocated the task to have the group certified.

We do have the basic framework there as it stands, and it has been a matter of putting together the necessary paperwork for the sake of it only which is the biggest frustration.

The same corrective and preventive actions I will be identifying and suggesting have been floating around for the last 5 years.

This is where I think the whole process is redundant and ISO loses its credibility.

If you pay the money, the independent company will no doubt certify you as it is in their interests to do so. So you have a whole heap of businesses that pay the cash to get the tick, but don't actually have any real quality in what they do. All you have to do is prove that you have a framework for continual improvement IMHO, and most of that exists on paper if management aren't committed.

This is where I think the whole process is redundant and ISO loses its credibility.

Sorry, I think this is where most people get it wrong. The standard is just a 'Quality Management System' and you expect the system to work by itself? Do we blame the system when our organization is not performing?

Some thing has to go into the system before something can come out of it. What you get at the other end depends on what you put in.

With regards to audits, it is just a third party assessment of how the system is functioning and I have no experience of what is happening in dysfunctional organizations. From what I read, it seems people can have all sorts of tricks to pull wools over the eyes of auditors.

With regards to government departments, I think I have more than a fair share of bad experience over here (bureaucracy and quality doesn't seem to get along and the incentive doesn't seem to be there). I do note that some government linked corporations over here seem to have moved into a positive direction by engaging reputable private CB's instead of going back to another government linked corporation for certification.

The crux of the story is
1. We have some CB's here who are big and reputable enough not to be afraid of losing a few clients - so not all CBs are the same.
2. The market knows which CB to engage to suit their needs.
3. Systems are just systems - you have to make it work

Sorry, I think this is where most people get it wrong. The standard is just a 'Quality Management System' and you expect the system to work by itself? Do we blame the system when our organization is not performing?

Some thing has to go into the system before something can come out of it. What you get at the other end depends on what you put in.

With regards to audits, it is just a third party assessment of how the system is functioning and I have no experience of what is happening in dysfunctional organizations. From what I read, it seems people can have all sorts of tricks to pull wools over the eyes of auditors.

With regards to government departments, I think I have more than a fair share of bad experience over here (bureaucracy and quality doesn't seem to get along and the incentive doesn't seem to be there). I do note that some government linked corporations over here seem to have moved into a positive direction by engaging reputable private CB's instead of going back to another government linked corporation for certification.

The crux of the story is
1. We have some CB's here who are big and reputable enough not to be afraid of losing a few clients - so not all CBs are the same.
2. The market knows which CB to engage to suit their needs.
3. Systems are just systems - you have to make it work


We are on the same side of the argument Harry, but I think the perceieved value of the actual certification has been lost because the scrutinisation of the system doesn't seem to be there.

I will guarantee you we will pass the certification, but I knwo for a fact there isnt quality in some of our key processes.

Our customers will laugh about it "Department X has ISO certification...haha shows how easy it is to get certified" etc etc.

Getting Management to commit to the QMS model is the biggest challenge.

but I knwo for a fact there isnt quality in some of our key processes.

I can feel your pain - especially with all the efforts put in and the (perceived) futility. If you had been around here long enough, you will note that in many discussions, management support and commitment are identified as key but often not there.

I guess you just had to press ahead and get your job done (at least these are within your control). With regards to the eventual or expected poor performance, those are out of your control but you can still hope and pray for some changes - perhaps a new head that is committed?

This may sound theoretical but Quality is truly a journey - you are bound to face bad patches along the way.

We are on the same side of the argument Harry, but I think the perceieved value of the actual certification has been lost because the scrutinisation of the system doesn't seem to be there.

I will guarantee you we will pass the certification, but I knwo for a fact there isnt quality in some of our key processes.

Our customers will laugh about it "Department X has ISO certification...haha shows how easy it is to get certified" etc etc.

There's one vital and critically important point that is missing from this discussion. I too have heard the comments that were made about documentation and records and then audits, review etc. (You can tell your CB isn't giving much thought to 'value added audits' if it came from them).

That key point is 'effectiveness'! You mention that "there isn't quality in some of our processes" which I'm sure you have a completely objective view of, based on the performance data from those processes.......

So, since this data will be pretty obvious - it must be available for management review etc., - then only a completely incompetent auditor would miss it during the audit, especially since the org. is only meeting minimum requirements! CB's almost never recruit morons (but then I only work in Europe/USA).

You say that you think the perceived value of certification is lost............but do you have any data? If you have anything more than a bad feeling about it, then it should come to light - maybe not to the extent you would wish, since the audit is a sample, the auditor doesn't know your management culture etc. You may pass the audit in the next few days, but can it be sustained with (apparently) poor processes? I doubt it! If you are correct in your assertions, then there's another aphorism that comes to mind;

"Every dog has his day"........

You say that you think the perceived value of certification is lost............but do you have any data? If you have anything more than a bad feeling about it, then it should come to light - maybe not to the extent you would wish, since the audit is a sample, the auditor doesn't know your management culture etc. You may pass the audit in the next few days, but can it be sustained with (apparently) poor processes? I doubt it! If you are correct in your assertions, then there's another aphorism that comes to mind;
"Every dog has his day"........

I worked in a company where document control in general and configuration control in particular had holes in it that you could drive the proverbial truck through. It wasn't unusual at all, for example, to have two significantly different drawings of the same part at the same revision level. In another company, I did a survey of the closed CAs and discovered that approximately 75% hadn't come close to identifying root causes, and were never shown to be effective. In yet another company, there were parts that were continually rejected at incoming inspection and "bought off" by engineering without anything being done to correct the problem (tolerances that were almost always too tight).

In each case, there were plenty of opportunities for CB auditors to find the problems, but somehow they never did. I understand the concept of an audit being a sample and that they shouldn't be expected to catch everything, but when serious (and reasonably obvious) issues get missed (or overlooked) repeatedly, something's wrong.

I think it's a fact that's simple to see--the community of registered companies has become so saturated that the luster of registration is nonexistent. When a commodity is scarce and a lot of people want it, it becomes valuable. When everybody has it, the value is diminished. Of course, ISO certification is what you make of it, but when the bar is set so low that even companies with no legs can jump over it with relative ease no one should be surprised that certification isn't the badge of honor everyone thought it would be.

I hear what you say, Jim. I'm also interested to hear your comments about the fact that the management in those places you cite and that the internal auditors didn't make a bigger deal of the fact that the systems/process etc weren't effective.......they too were part of the certification, weren't they?

I'm not proposing that two wrongs make it all right, but I wonder what the selection criteria for the CB was..........lowest price? If the company had such glowing issues, why didn't they ask for a more effective auditor?

It takes two to tango and clearly a client has an equal role in implementing as the CB does in certifying. Happily, I believe most clients know that and can justify their certification to the world. A couple of bad apples are, happily, not indicative of the whole orchard...........

I hear what you say, Jim. I'm also interested to hear your comments about the fact that the management in those places you cite and that the internal auditors didn't make a bigger deal of the fact that the systems/process etc weren't effective.......they too were part of the certification, weren't they?

I already cited (in one instance) numerous times when CAs were done (some for issues discovered in IAs) and root causes/effectiveness weren't properly addressed. Practically all of what goes wrong (and right) in any company can be traced back to management, but at least part of what "independent" auditing is supposed to accomplish is to provide checks and balances. There are way too many cases where that's not happening.

I'm not proposing that two wrongs make it all right, but I wonder what the selection criteria for the CB was..........lowest price? If the company had such glowing issues, why didn't they ask for a more effective auditor?
I've never worked in a certified company where the CB was of the "cheap" variety. All were major CBs. As for asking for more "effective" auditors, it depends on what your definition of "effective" is. In many cases, "effective" means keeping the certificate on the wall in spite of obvious problems.

It takes two to tango and clearly a client has an equal role in implementing as the CB does in certifying. Happily, I believe most clients know that and can justify their certification to the world. A couple of bad apples are, happily, not indicative of the whole orchard...........
Let's go back to the beginning. The first ISO 9001 registration project I worked on was in the early 1990s, and I was actually working from a copy of BS5750. The impetus for our registration effort was the widespread and false reports--promulgatged mostly by consultants--that American companies wouldn't be able to sell products in the EU without ISO certification. While I don't recall any of the nascent CBs pushing this view, they certainly did nothing to disabuse anyone of it. Much of the perceived benefit (at the time) was built on false premises.

Another touted benefit was that customers would be able to eliminate or drastically reduce their own supplier audit activities. Another false premise, as it turned out. Yet another benefit was the "one size fits all" nature of the standard--it was supposed to be suitable for any type of manufacturing company. But it was only a few years before ISO 9000 started having babies--QS 9000 being the primary offspring.

Now, some twenty years after the first certifications, practically everyone has a lovely certificate, and American manufacturing has gone down the tubes. The automotive industry in particular has shown no signs of actually understanding what got it into the situation it's in now, and probably will never acknowledge that the huge amounts of money spent on a demonstrably ineffective supplier management effort is a large part of the cause.

Lest I be excoriated for "bashing," I acknowledge that many companies have gotten better by concentrating on control of their processes, and that in many cases that might not have happened had it not been for the requirement for them to get certified. Nonetheless, there are far too many companies that are certified that shouldn't be, and the numbers of them are too great to not think that the CBs--all of them--aren't part of the cause.

Jim, your normally cogent argument has truly amazed and somewhat concerned me!

You appear to be blaming the demise of NA manufacturing and, in particular, the auto industry - on ISO certification! Were they pinning their hopes of survival on being ISO 9000 certified? Because of the extra cost, perhaps of maintaining a certified qms?

Unfortunately, I don't have time to point out all of the places I believe you've mixed your message - I'm headed to the airport - but I will say this;

I see no connection between the previous version of ISO 9000 (in particular BS), its benefits (perceived, false or otherwise) or a rush to trade in Europe compared to what happens today. Blaming the kids for the sins of the parents isn't appropriate, is it?

In my experience only a handful of companies traded in Europe - in fact, 20 years ago, I remember very few USA made products ever being for sale in Europe! Plus, you'll remember that the pre 2000 version of the standard had almost nothing which indicated an objectively effective system was a requirement! You can't reasonably lay the blame for the content of the previous versions of the ISO standard, which wasn't written with certification in mind, at the door of any CB.

Sorry, Jim, I think you've got it wrong this time........

Jim, your normally cogent argument has truly amazed and somewhat concerned me!

You appear to be blaming the demise of NA manufacturing and, in particular, the auto industry - on ISO certification! Were they pinning their hopes of survival on being ISO 9000 certified? Because of the extra cost, perhaps of maintaining a certified qms?

Unfortunately, I don't have time to point out all of the places I believe you've mixed your message - I'm headed to the airport - but I will say this;

I see no connection between the previous version of ISO 9000 (in particular BS), its benefits (perceived, false or otherwise) or a rush to trade in Europe compared to what happens today. Blaming the kids for the sins of the parents isn't appropriate, is it?

In my experience only a handful of companies traded in Europe - in fact, 20 years ago, I remember very few USA made products ever being for sale in Europe! Plus, you'll remember that the pre 2000 version of the standard had almost nothing which indicated an objectively effective system was a requirement! You can't reasonably lay the blame for the content of the previous versions of the ISO standard, which wasn't written with certification in mind, at the door of any CB.

Sorry, Jim, I think you've got it wrong this time........

Why not try responding to what I actually wrote, and not a strawman version of it?

Nonetheless, there are far too many companies that are certified that shouldn't be, and the numbers of them are too great to not think that the CBs--all of them--aren't part of the cause.I agree with this assessment. There are many culprits for substandard systems, around the World, attaining and maintaining certification. CB's would be foolish if they tried to deflect the part of the blame we must bear.

Still, I contend, if 30 years and 1 million certified systems later, the process did not deliver some level of noticeable improvement, this should be deemed the pyramid scheme of the ages.
but when the bar is set so low that even companies with no legs can jump over it with relative ease no one should be surprised that certification isn't the badge of honor everyone thought it would be.That is what I refer to the "trivialization" of the certification process. Until we solve the lack of association between system performance and certification, it will be hard to reconcile all stakeholders expectations of what a certificate should mean.

There's one vital and critically important point that is missing from this discussion. I too have heard the comments that were made about documentation and records and then audits, review etc. (You can tell your CB isn't giving much thought to 'value added audits' if it came from them).

That key point is 'effectiveness'! You mention that "there isn't quality in some of our processes" which I'm sure you have a completely objective view of, based on the performance data from those processes.......

So, since this data will be pretty obvious - it must be available for management review etc., - then only a completely incompetent auditor would miss it during the audit, especially since the org. is only meeting minimum requirements! CB's almost never recruit morons (but then I only work in Europe/USA).

You say that you think the perceived value of certification is lost............but do you have any data? If you have anything more than a bad feeling about it, then it should come to light - maybe not to the extent you would wish, since the audit is a sample, the auditor doesn't know your management culture etc. You may pass the audit in the next few days, but can it be sustained with (apparently) poor processes? I doubt it! If you are correct in your assertions, then there's another aphorism that comes to mind;

"Every dog has his day"........

Okay heres the deal.

I have the audit end of this week.

1 of our outputs OUR PRIMARY OUTPUT is not actually tracked and measured by management. They have no idea what % go out on time, what % are error free etc.

I will be willing to bet 50,000,0000,000,000 Zimbawbean "dollars" that the auditor doesn't identify this

Okay heres the deal.

I have the audit end of this week.

1 of our outputs OUR PRIMARY OUTPUT is not actually tracked and measured by management. They have no idea what % go out on time, what % are error free etc.

I will be willing to bet 50,000,0000,000,000 Zimbawbean "dollars" that the auditor doesn't identify this

That's "Zimbabwean," but I do like the sound of your spelling, especially if it's pronounced Zim-baw-bean. :tg:

That's "Zimbabwean," but I do like the sound of your spelling, especially if it's pronounced Zim-baw-bean. :tg:

Apologies, I am not spell checking posts...too busy getting paperwork together to bluff the audit!

too busy getting paperwork together to bluff the audit!Congratulations for fooling the auditor, your management and your customers. So, tell us, how does it feel being part of the problem? How does that behavior fit with this?

Moderator note:
Link to obstacle3 place of employment has been broken. This is not a polite thing to do and I apologize on behalf of the moderators who did not catch this earlier

Is there an emoticon I can use to indicate I was being sarcastic?

As I explained earlier I have a mandate I don't agree with but am employed to deliver

And for the record, we do have the necessary controls in place to meet the requirements of the standard.

Is there an emoticon I can use to indicate I was being sarcastic?

As I explained earlier I have a mandate I don't agree with but am employed to deliver

And for the record, we do have the necessary controls in place to meet the requirements of the standard.

The emoticon for sarcasm is located in the message box when you're typing a reply, at the bottom of the Smilies list beside the box where you type your reply and it looks like this: :sarcasm:.

Hope this helps. :)

BTW, welcome to the Cove, Obstacle3! :bigwave:

Cool thanks GS.
A baptism of fire perhaps! :sarcasm: :nopity::blowup:

:agree:Passed audit

Your hard work pays - Congratulations!

uhh !
wot is that all about ?