L
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
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
