Is ISO 9001 Cresting? Is a rebellion in the works?

[Marc]

Yesterday I received my third call since January from a major multi-national asking me to develop a supplier evaluation and development program which does not so much as mention ISO 9001 and is applicable to smaller suppliers. Nice for me because I can draw on my previous work, but I'm beginning to wonder.

[CarolX]

Marc,

I would say emphatically that the rebellion has started. This ISO thing was just like any other fad, it's time has come and gone. A few more years and it will be replaced by some new re-hashed idea with a new name tag.

JMHO,
CarolX

[db]

Marc, I think these are two different issues. First, I think ISO 9001 is at, or close to it's peak. Those who WANT to register probably already are, those who HAVE to register probably are as well. I see this as a mature market (from a consultant's viewpoint). The heyday of having more clients than we can deal with are beyond us now. This can be evidenced by the drop in consultant fees.

The issue of the rebellion will never die! I see an expanded call for self-declaration (thanks in part to ISO 14001). Because the competitive advantage of registration is pretty much gone, I think more companies will say things amounting to they do not see the need to pay a registrar to pay them for something they already know!

If a company has the self-discipline to maintain a QMS without registration, then self-certification/declaration might be useful (Carl’s posts reflect his organization might be a good example). Most companies I work with lack such self-discipline and I see a gradual decay back to 50’s manufacturing.

[Scott]

My belief is that the 2000 standard seems to have had a negative shock on our management. They were able to live with the 94 standard of do what you say, say what you do, blah, blah, blah. Now, when we give them the new standard they see only the Mangement Review section. No longer is it the troops doing all the work for certification by following processes now they have to be over-involved.

I work for a large defense contractor and the company, (high level), has terminated it's contract with the registrar and is banking on getting 2000 cert'd through some government agency no one has heard of.

In the last 2 months we have totally fallen off the dime where we were certified and everyone was actually working together and following processes. Now all CAB's have been cancelled and nothing is happening. The offical word is we are waiting further word from corporate...ha

I see this boat going down for the last time very soon. We might get 2000 certified in the future but it will be a paperwork drill only.

Again, my thinking on this is Top Management, (and the next 3 layers), are too busy keeping companies going these days and they don't have the time or energy to do that much more. Let's leave it where the management is involved at arms length and make the department heads responsible for implementation.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Thanks for the forum as it is a crappy Friday.

[HFowler]

I'm not as concerned with whether the interest in ISO is declining as I am with the loss of interest in quality. It is hard to find anyone or any organization that is really quality focused.

I hope that the next quality initiative that comes along is something that management supports.

Hank Fowler

[Atul Khandekar]

In my part of the world I don't see any rebellion yet. ISO is still important (not necessarily Quality) purely from business point of view. "self-discipline to maintain a QMS without registration" is almost unthinkable !

[Mike S.]

Here's one theory I have: Maybe management is rebelling against ISO 9000 in part because some of the things it requires are not viewed as bringing added value to the company, but rather additional work that is considered unnecessary for that particular organization. As just one small example I've heard, management has no problems doing management reviews at intervals they feel are appropriate, but they resent having the standard insist that some type of records be maintained as evidence of the review. "Unnecessary work" in their view, yet it is mandated by ISO. Do it or else....

Another popular complaint seems to be registrars interpreting requirements differently than management and management being threatened with loss of certification if they don't give-in. Do it or else... Most top managers don't take kindly to this kind of thing, especially when business is low and moods are correspondingly low.

It seems to me that one of the "in things" to do right now is to make operations as "lean" as possible, especially in the current marketplace. "Experts" and "regular guys" both think that makes sense. However, there times when the standard handcuffs management and gets in the way of the "leaning" process as they want to do it. When business is down (as it is for my company and a few others with whom I am familiar) it is taken as an especially bitter pill when the standard gets in the way of what they feel are worthwhile changes. It seems the two ideas (ISO and "lean") conflict in some cases.

This is not to suggest that ISO doesn't have parts that these same managers totally agree with. They're not all "anti-quality". They just value more flexibility than ISO offers in some cases.

Just one opinion. I have lots more but I am probably in enough trouble for one week already.

Mike S.

[gpainter]

Just did a quick check of registrations ot the 2000 standard and found the following:
USA Registration 1044 of 35018
World Registration 3166 of 408631
based on those registered in Dec 00
Is/was ISO a fad???
I think that many are self declaring and will opt out of registration and there will still be a market for registration but less registrars. I even believe that there will be a market for nonregistration 3rd party audits. Anyone want to go in business??