ISO-9001 Certification - Exploitation of tiny organizations
Posted 17th July 2011 at 04:07 AM by Dr. L. Ramakrishnan
In the last two months I have come across at least two ISO-9001 certified organizations that make me upset over the unethical practices of the so called consultants and certification agencies.
In both the cases, the organizations have "gone for" the ISO-9001 certification as they had to fulfill certain requirements to be recognized for carrying out work for the Government. They are tiny organizations, mostly driven by the owner-technocrat with a few (< 5) permanent employees. While the owner-technocrat is good in his subject area, his/her knowledge of Quality Management System is almost nil. Hence he depends on an external "expert" to guide him to fulfill the requirement to get the specific work from the Government.
In the first case, the organization has got ISO-9001 certificate from an accredited agency. The manual though contained references to stocking of pumps, pipes, starters etc., which were not relevant to the consultancy organization; obviously it was a poor "cut and paste" job. The tiny organization, including the owner, does not know anything about ISO-9001 or its requirement. Their only relationship with ISO-9001 is the QMS Manual. The Owner does not know the salient features of his QMS Policy. None of the employees has had any training in ISO 9001 or none had any communication on the policy and procedures. The organization did not carry out any QMS internal audit and has not been subjected any certification audit. But it has a "valid" ISO-9001 certification by an accredited certification agency.
In the second case, the story is almost similar. The sequence of events is slightly different. First the organization was issued the ISO-9001 certification by the Certification Agency; then the certification agency provided the client with a manual without any second/third/fourth tier documents. The tiny organization is under the impression that they had got the certification and that they got it because they have a manual (which incidentally was prepared by Certification agency). The organization was certain that they fulfilled the requirements of the Government Department for work in the specific subject area. They had already paid the required fee to the consultant as soon as the consultant had given them the "Certificate".
I am afraid, I will come across many more such tiny organizations in the near future; I am sure for every one such organization that I had come across we will have 100s of similar organizations which I had no opportunity to visit and assess.
I see an exploitation of those who have little/no knowledge of ISO-9001 (or QMS) by the so called consultants and certification agencies.
How do we address this issue and save the tiny organizations from these exploiters ?
In both the cases, the organizations have "gone for" the ISO-9001 certification as they had to fulfill certain requirements to be recognized for carrying out work for the Government. They are tiny organizations, mostly driven by the owner-technocrat with a few (< 5) permanent employees. While the owner-technocrat is good in his subject area, his/her knowledge of Quality Management System is almost nil. Hence he depends on an external "expert" to guide him to fulfill the requirement to get the specific work from the Government.
In the first case, the organization has got ISO-9001 certificate from an accredited agency. The manual though contained references to stocking of pumps, pipes, starters etc., which were not relevant to the consultancy organization; obviously it was a poor "cut and paste" job. The tiny organization, including the owner, does not know anything about ISO-9001 or its requirement. Their only relationship with ISO-9001 is the QMS Manual. The Owner does not know the salient features of his QMS Policy. None of the employees has had any training in ISO 9001 or none had any communication on the policy and procedures. The organization did not carry out any QMS internal audit and has not been subjected any certification audit. But it has a "valid" ISO-9001 certification by an accredited certification agency.
In the second case, the story is almost similar. The sequence of events is slightly different. First the organization was issued the ISO-9001 certification by the Certification Agency; then the certification agency provided the client with a manual without any second/third/fourth tier documents. The tiny organization is under the impression that they had got the certification and that they got it because they have a manual (which incidentally was prepared by Certification agency). The organization was certain that they fulfilled the requirements of the Government Department for work in the specific subject area. They had already paid the required fee to the consultant as soon as the consultant had given them the "Certificate".
I am afraid, I will come across many more such tiny organizations in the near future; I am sure for every one such organization that I had come across we will have 100s of similar organizations which I had no opportunity to visit and assess.
I see an exploitation of those who have little/no knowledge of ISO-9001 (or QMS) by the so called consultants and certification agencies.
How do we address this issue and save the tiny organizations from these exploiters ?
Posted in Personal Opinions, Quality Assurance Topics, Personal Experiences and Thoughts about Things
Views 1479
Comments 3
Total Comments 3
Comments
-
I am the QA Manager for a small aerospace manufacturing company (30 employees and less at times) and this small company has been crucified by the AC and Nadcap auditors; very costly - and strongly agree with your comments about exploiting smaller companies. It has been very difficult working with the AC's and Nadcap personnel. Once the auditor has conducted the audit, wrote their findings, the AC's and Nadcap reviewing entities basically "rubber stamp" what the auditor has written and why wouldn't they - they are in the business of making money. The more audit dollars they can generate the more people they need and the longer they stay in business.
The auditors expect the small companies to operate in the same league as the Boeing's of the world. However, this is not cost effective which I believe is still a founding principle for even having a quality system.
Where the governing bodies are represented by the large OEM's it will be difficult to make any notable changes in the way the AC's and Nadcap operate. Not being pessimistic just not sure there is a clear path until some of the mid-sized companies start raising issues about the AC's and Nadcap accreditation and auditing systems.
Is there an AC Body that can be recommended to a small company such as mine - that is at least "reasonable", as an ANAB Auditor put it?Posted 24th October 2011 at 02:22 PM by KJPeterson 
-
I agree !!! Organization should select the right Consultants for Establishing, Documenting and Implementing the ISO 9001 requirements and CB for certifying the same.
Posted 16th November 2011 at 01:14 AM by syedsha
-
Reviving an old thread ;)
I think this tendency will be increased with the opening/internationalization of markets. In Europe the crisis has spurred renewed interest in small startups. How can a small 4-10person startup find its was through the certification jungle?
As part of such a startup, I wanna do it 'right'. But the lack of transparency in the field of certification bodies makes it really hard to make an informed decision.
Could we make a resource/forum targeting tiny startups?Posted 18th June 2012 at 05:14 AM by Paamand
Total Trackbacks 0
