A Challenge to the Certification Industry

[lean_machine]

Explain to us:

1. The return and benefit to companies which choose certification. Show us the ROI, the lower Cost of Poor Quality, the reduction in scrap, rework, and defects, the improved service levels, and all the other quantifiable measures which demonstrate benefit. And do it by disentangling certification from implementation - by comparing certified companies against a control group of non-certified companies having the same QMS baseline.

2. How certification is anything other than verifying conformity to requirements. And while you’re at it, you might want to enlighten us as to why many of the certifications done so far contain a major nonconformity – the lack of objectives. As the late Dr. Eicher of ISO said, “ a system without objectives clearly cannot possibly deliver quality.”

3. How the distortion you have introduced into the marketplace by fostering the notion that “certification is quality” is beneficial. And show us how all the regalia, banners, flags, and seals you provide your clients with to proclaim themselves “ISO 9000 Certified” isn’t misleading – its the QMS which is certified, not the company, and in many cases the scope of certification only covers a portion of their operations (a fact now addressed by the scope exclusions of ISO 9001:2000).

4. The hypocrisy whereby certified companies, which are encouraged by ISO 9000 to move beyond inspection for quality, have to be subjected to a system of inspections for verifying their ongoing conformity and “commitment to quality.” How do surveillance inspections help certified companies improve quality? As Deming said in Out of the Crisis, “Inspection does not improve quality, nor guarantee quality. Inspection is too late. The quality, good or bad, is already in the product.” Substitute the word “company” for “product” and you’ll have the answer.

I’ll be watching to see if a certification body steps up to the plate to address any of these issues. Somehow, I think the silence will be deafening. Cheers,

Lean

[Mike S.]

Lean,

You seem to be a man/woman on a mission -- almost fanatical in your drive. In 2 days I've seen you start several threads and make many posts all focused on this one issue. I'm not criticizing -- I share many of your views -- but I am just wondering if you could fill us in on "why" you feel so strongly on this one subject. Just being curious...

[Jimmy Olson]

I too have to wonder about the motive behind this tyrade.

I'm beginning to think that Lean is a member of some radical anti-ISO group that is trying to form their own standard

(I think there are a couple other members here as well )

[Randy]

Do we have someone new who is grinding the axe?

I see where return on investment was brought up. Interesting!

[Mike S.]

Jim Wade said:

It appears that many auditors don't understand what an objective is; they seem to think that simply to mention the word in the 'quality' policy does the trick.

This particular shortcoming is not only a major nonconformity, it's also just about the most damaging lack in a 'quality' management system that one could imagine! Since the purpose of the system is to provide the means for achieving objectives, giving a certificate to a company with no objectives is simply obscene.

Of course, now that TC176 has dicovered this brilliant new idea of measurable objectives (wow, that is so neat!) all will be well [insert sarcastic smiley].
rgds Jim

Jim,

Do you seriously think the lack of a written objective in your QMS is "obscene" and "the most damaging lack in a 'quality' management system that one could imagine"? An objective is defined by ASQ as "a specific statement of a desired short term condition or achievement; includes measurable end results to be accomplished by specific teams or individuals within time limits". So the lack of that being written down is as bad as it gets? If so, I'd expect any company with a cert given by a registrar who did not require the objectives should be out of business in a matter of weeks due to suddenly shipping terrible quality or not shipping at all.

Don't get me wrong -- I think objectives are important, but the MOST important part of a QMS? No. That's being a bit dramatic to me. JMO.

[Randy Stewart]

the lack of that being written down is as bad as it gets?

What's one of the 3 basic rules of ISO???? If it's not documented it didn't happen!!!!
I don't know if I can agree that it's the worse that can happen. I do know if you don't have something documented and to judge against (measured) that the objective remains too ambiguous and open to interpretation.

I'm beginning to think that Lean is a member of some radical anti-ISO group that is trying to form their own standard

He's too late for that Richard, Vanguard already beat him to the punch.

Look at the name used. That should tell you something.

If you follow the Lean Manufacturing 12 guiding principles, add in integrity and customer satisfaction, you can beat the socks off of ISO, QS, or any other standard out there. The lean stuff has been preached to me for 8 years and it has only been in the last 3 that it has really started to make practical sense to me.

You only have to look as far as Toyota to get the big picture. For those of you in the B3 nest, it is time to be afraid, very afraid!!! If we don't change our ways there is going to be some "LEAN" years ahead. And remember, Toyota, Honda, etc. do it without a need for ISO. They have had some favorable things to say about 16949 but not much for ISO.

[Mike S.]

Stew/Jim,

Of course I understand if it is not written down it can be too ambiguous and open to interpretation and there is no proof that it happened and all that. Regarding objectives as well as other requirements. And, yes, objectives are important and yes, it would be a major NC. No argument on any of that.

But, as Jim says, the lack of written objectives being "the most damaging lack in a 'quality' management system that one could imagine"? I suggest with all due respect that Jim doesn't have a very good imagination! I've seen (and can imagine) much more damage done by lack of a functional calibration system, or doc control system, or the lack of adequate training, do tremendous damage to a company and their customers; much more than I can see happening because somebody forgot to write down things like "increase customer satisfaction index in the X division by 20% over the June 2002 value in the next 3 months" or "increase OTD to 98% in all product lines by January 2003" or such things. But hey, that's just MHO and I've been wrong before.

Others?

Mike S. said:

Stew/Jim,

But, as Jim says, the lack of written objectives being "the most damaging lack in a 'quality' management system that one could imagine"? I suggest with all due respect that Jim doesn't have a very good imagination! I've seen (and can imagine) much more damage done by lack of a functional calibration system, or doc control system, or the lack of adequate training, do tremendous damage to a company and their customers; much more than I can see happening because somebody forgot to write down things like "increase customer satisfaction index in the X division by 20% over the June 2002 value in the next 3 months" or "increase OTD to 98% in all product lines by January 2003" or such things. But hey, that's just MHO and I've been wrong before.

Others?

Like ineffective product Realization (Contract Review) that caused incorrect product to be built and shipped to the Customer? Improper packaging causing damage to equipment? When I think back on the things that I've seen go wrong with over 35 years in this business, major catastrophies, not one was ever attributed to failure to have a written objective. I'll stop here.