Registrars offering to perform Second Party Audits - Have they failed their role?
R
Reg Morrison
The data from the ISO Survey shows the following development for ISO 9001 certificates in the USA
My point is: if ISO 9001 certificates consistently delivered what the IAF/ISO state it should deliver, a much higher number of organizations would be demanding ISO 9001 certification throughout it's supply chain (beyond it's direct suppliers). After all, which business would not want to have suppliers that consistently provide products that meet customer and applicable legal requirements and provide customer satisfaction?
The fact that fewer companies are getting certified (according to DATA), in my mind reflects many people's suspicions that certificates can not be trusted as a correlation of good supplier performance. If registrars want their services to be valued, they should hire people that develop and maintain process to support the ISO/IAF vision. If the registrars employees believe that certification is only "blocking and tackling, basic things" and no expectations of supplier performance could or should be associated with their services and certificates, then they are NOT contributing to the fulfillment of the IAF/ISO vision on the expected outcomes of accredited certification.
What is the point of having the declared expectation if people responsible for delivering certification services are not aware or in line with it?
My point is: if ISO 9001 certificates consistently delivered what the IAF/ISO state it should deliver, a much higher number of organizations would be demanding ISO 9001 certification throughout it's supply chain (beyond it's direct suppliers). After all, which business would not want to have suppliers that consistently provide products that meet customer and applicable legal requirements and provide customer satisfaction?
The fact that fewer companies are getting certified (according to DATA), in my mind reflects many people's suspicions that certificates can not be trusted as a correlation of good supplier performance. If registrars want their services to be valued, they should hire people that develop and maintain process to support the ISO/IAF vision. If the registrars employees believe that certification is only "blocking and tackling, basic things" and no expectations of supplier performance could or should be associated with their services and certificates, then they are NOT contributing to the fulfillment of the IAF/ISO vision on the expected outcomes of accredited certification.
What is the point of having the declared expectation if people responsible for delivering certification services are not aware or in line with it?
Most registrars operating in the USA these days offer second-party audit services.
Certainly, they could not perform those services for an organization that they certify, since supplier evaluation is a process of the QMS that can not be outsourced to the registrar due to conflict of interest.
But, besides that, isn't the fact that the offering exists an attestation that the third-party certification role has been failed? By the same registrars?
If we had a reliable, confidence-delivering 3rd party certification process, why would we need registrars for 2nd party-audits?
I would accept your ascertain if, and only if, you considered every nonconformance raised during an audit as evidence that the certification program has failed.
Reg,
What does this histogram look like when it is corrected for certifications to 16949, 9100, 13485 and other management system standards with ISO 9001 at their core such as IRIS?
BTW, the vision needs to come from the customers and their customers not from the administrators.
John
D
db
This may not be the case. One reason for the drop is the recession of last decade. I work with manufacturers and saw more companies go out of business from 2007-2009 than I had in the previous 30 years. Many manufacturers are still struggling and are still going out of business. The drop in data could very well be that more registered companies are going out of business than new registrations.
The data that might be useful would be the number of first-time registrations, compared to new business start-up and compare with historical data. But even then, we have to take into account the current business climate.
...then we should also factor in the consolidations of multiple site certifications into single company-wide management system certifications.
R
Reg Morrison
Don't know. But since most of the companies certified to the standards you listed ALSO get an ISO 9001 certificate, I tend to think that certifications to those standards actually increase the number of ISO 9001 certificates. Without those standards, it is possible that the number of ISO 9001 certificates in the USA would be 10-15,000 fewer than the 26,000 reported in 2012.
In the ISO/IAF document I linked below, it reads
Do you think that reasonable customers would expect something different?
In 6.5 years, I have seen a 20%+ growth in ISO 9001 certificates, while maintaining a 97% client retention. It's not ALL because of transfers from other CBs either. The FACTS are that the traditional arena for certification - that of manufacturing - will become saturated (for that which stayed onshore). Not all organizations are as mature about quality in the supply chain, either. The lower you go in the supply chain, the smaller the organizations become and the less $$ clout they have with their suppliers - it's called the law of diminishing returns. Only cynical skeptics would blame it on the "popularity" of certification, or performance of CBs, instead of the REAL reasons.
Outside of the manufacturing arena, if certification is so horribly bad, which is there growth in ISO 27001 certification, for example? There isn't even the specter of the EU blocking US based suppliers to spur interest. Before we talk facts, we have to understand the motivation for using them first. Since I'm paid by the clients I bring to certification, I'm right where the action is - not standing on the side lines throwing stones! Oh, and BTW - all the consultants I know are all crazy busy helping clients, too!
Outside of the manufacturing arena, if certification is so horribly bad, which is there growth in ISO 27001 certification, for example? There isn't even the specter of the EU blocking US based suppliers to spur interest. Before we talk facts, we have to understand the motivation for using them first. Since I'm paid by the clients I bring to certification, I'm right where the action is - not standing on the side lines throwing stones! Oh, and BTW - all the consultants I know are all crazy busy helping clients, too!
Last edited:
Reg,
Product certification coupled with system certification and accreditation of any special processes may be relied on but system certification alone may be used simply to start the relationship between a B2B customer and its supplier.
John
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Sticky
- Sticky
