Show preference to certified suppliers

When a consumer uses a certified supplier he/she has assurance that the supplier is committed to continually improving product and services and the systems of delivering them.

This fact should be conveyed to consumer groups.

The public should be made aware of the advantages of 'SHOWING PREFERENCE TO CERTIFIED SUPPLIERS'. This is what ISO900/ISO14000/AS4804 is all about.

[Andy Bassett]

Alan - Is it your experience or beleive that suppliers that are certified are 'genuinely commited to improvement'.

Do you really beleive that a certified supplier is turning out better quality that a none-certifed supplier.

I would be very interested to know your thoughts about this, I personally have very mixed feelings about this.

Regards


------------------
Andy B

[Marc]

Originally posted by Alan Cotterell:
When a consumer uses a certified supplier....

Please define 'certified suplier'. Do you mean an ISO900x registered company?

In Australia we use two terms:
Accreditation meaning the activity where the Joint Accreditation Australia And New Zealand (JASANZ) gives authorisation to 'certifying bodies' to audit management systems, and issue an ISO9000 certificate.
Certification meaning the granting of an ISO9000 certificate (Which I presume is your 'registration').
Any company which is certified in Australia must prove some level of commitment to 'continual improvement', this aspect is the subject of ISO9004.1 Y2K version which has been released as an interim version in Australia.
The strongest driving force for implementation of ISO9000, has been in my experience, has been the 'second party audit', where the customer audits the QMS to see how his/her contract is being handled.
I have experienced this on two occasions while working for a medium sized engineering company - the effect on the CEO and Engineering Manager was to say the least , galvanising.
Wher lip service is often paid to ISO9000, it becomes genuine, at least for a short time, when the bottom line is affected.

[Marc]

My personal opinion is that ISO9000 registration means very little except that the company is ISO9000 registered. It does not imply good quality. It does not imply on-time delivery. It does not imply much.

When a consumer uses a certified supplier he/she has assurance that the supplier is committed to continually improving product and services and the systems of delivering them.

I do not for a minute believe this is necessarily true. For some companies this is true. For many it is not. I have worked with many clients which ISO9000 did little for - they didn't need ISO to design and manufacture excellent products. They had good communication and business systems to begin with.

In addition, I hear complaints somewhat regularly which amount to: "Such and such a company is ISO9000 registered, but they keep shipping me trash. Who can I complain to? I thought ISO companies couldn't do this..."

ISO9000 is only 1 of many criteria I would consider in choosing suppliers.

This is not to say that ISO9000 registration is useless. Quite the opposite. I think for many companies it is a positive tool. I believe it is a good idea. But I also see other tools which I believe are potentially just as important.

I believe that each company has a 'karma' - a personality. Aspects such as "continually improving product" are a function of these - not ISO9000. While the year 2000 revision is supposed to stress continuous improvement and customer satisfaction more than the '94 version, I think the basic fact is that companies which do not improve are destined to failure by the market.

There are many tools a company can use to improve. ISO9000 is just 1 of the many.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Alan Cotterell: In Australia we use two terms:
Accreditation meaning the activity where the Joint Accreditation Australia And New Zealand (JASANZ) gives authorisation to 'certifying bodies' to audit management systems, and issue an ISO9000 certificate.
Certification meaning the granting of an ISO9000 certificate (Which I presume is your 'registration').

This came from my request for a definition for Certified Supplier. I asked because there are many 'certified' and 'approved' supplier schemes.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 06 February 2000).]

[Marc]

The strongest driving force for implementation of ISO9000, has been in my experience, has been the 'second party audit', where the customer audits the QMS to see how his/her contract is being handled.

I have not seen evidence that ISO (or QS for that matter) significantly reduces customer audits. If anything reduces customer audits, it is when a company embraces a frequency reduction to reduce the internal costs of sending people out to audit suppliers.

My experience with ISO9000 has been as Quality Manager in a medium sized engineering company handling reasonably large contracts. The need for customer audits of the supplier was still there despite 'registration', as the contracts were worth up to $10m.
The QMS provided the means of evaluating whether the project (contract) was being handled. And whether the agreed documentation was being followed (QMS, contract and drawings).
One aspect which ISO9000 does not address is the matter of 'Inspection & Test Plans' which are directly derived from setting up a project 'task list', as a result of 'contract review'.
ISO9000 does not in itself give any guarantees, but it does give level of 'assurance' that the job is being 'done right'.
The discipline which ISO9000 imposes can only be beneficial to any organisation. Transparent management techniques (documented) prevent 'ad hoc' management, particularly when careless decision makers 'arses are on the line'.