ISO 9001 News Annual ISO Survey of Management System Certificate Numbers - September 2023
- Thread starter Sidney Vianna
- Start date
Re: Annual ISO Surveys of Certificate Numbers - Worldwide data
ISO has released the latest numbers (2012). Check out the numbers and data at https://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/certification/iso-survey.htm
The Executive Summary is attached.
ISO has released the latest numbers (2012). Check out the numbers and data at https://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/certification/iso-survey.htm
The Executive Summary is attached.
ISO Survey 2013 is now available - 20140915
ISO has released the 2013 version of it's annual Survey @ https://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/certification/iso-survey.htm?
ISO has released the 2013 version of it's annual Survey @ https://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/certification/iso-survey.htm?
Re: Annual ISO Surveys of Certificate Numbers - Worldwide data
The 2015 numbers from the (broken link removed) are now available.
Some numbers from the ISO 9001 spreadsheet seem awfully incorrect. For example, if you look at the numbers in the third tab of the excel file (ISO 9001 All Countries), we see that
There might be some "quality errors" in the numbers. After all, the numbers refer to 2015 and we've had only 10 months to verify the accuracy of the data.
The 2015 numbers from the (broken link removed) are now available.
Some numbers from the ISO 9001 spreadsheet seem awfully incorrect. For example, if you look at the numbers in the third tab of the excel file (ISO 9001 All Countries), we see that
- China had 292514 ISO 9001:2008 certificates and 45 ISO 9001:2015 certificates, covering respectively 56441 and 28 sites
. How can you have more certificates than sites?
- France had 63889 sites certified to ISO 9001:2015 covered by only 246 certificates, an average of approximately 260 sites per certificate.:mg:
- Morocco has 19551 sites certified to ISO 9001:2015 with only 7 certificates. An average of 2793 sites per certificate.:mg::mg:
There might be some "quality errors" in the numbers. After all, the numbers refer to 2015 and we've had only 10 months to verify the accuracy of the data.
Re: One year to ISO 9001 and 14001 transition deadline. ISO & IAF communique'
ISO just released the 2016 ISO Survey. For the USA, it shows another year of decline in ISO 9001 certificates, according to their numbers.
So, China, the 2nd largest economy in the World, has over 350,000 ISO 9001 certificates, while the USA has less than 10% of that.
ISO just released the 2016 ISO Survey. For the USA, it shows another year of decline in ISO 9001 certificates, according to their numbers.
So, China, the 2nd largest economy in the World, has over 350,000 ISO 9001 certificates, while the USA has less than 10% of that.
Re: One year to ISO 9001 and 14001 transition deadline. ISO & IAF communique'
If 1,300,000 companies are registered, and let's say there are approximately 150,000,000,companies in the world, that gives us 0.0086% of all companies are registered. If the benefits of ISO 9001 are so significant, why are so few companies registered? Not to mention, what, exactly, are the "benefits"?
I don't even want to begin to try to come up with a figure of how much money companies are spending for consultants and making internal changes to "comply" with the new revision.
Nor do I remember anywhere that there is a realistic estimation of how much money a typical company actually saves (or how much new business they have gotten) based upon their being ISO 9001 certified.
As to China, from what I can tell there are (data from 2013 - China has 40.6 million private businesses - MarketWatch ) The number of individually owned businesses and private enterprises in China exceeded 40.6 million. Then again, according to How Many Companies in China? | China Checkup there are approximately 77,469,000 businesses in China.
350,000 ÷ 40,600,000 = 0.0862%
350,000 ÷ 77,469,000 = 0.0045%
Just some thoughts.
If 1,300,000 companies are registered, and let's say there are approximately 150,000,000,companies in the world, that gives us 0.0086% of all companies are registered. If the benefits of ISO 9001 are so significant, why are so few companies registered? Not to mention, what, exactly, are the "benefits"?
I don't even want to begin to try to come up with a figure of how much money companies are spending for consultants and making internal changes to "comply" with the new revision.
Nor do I remember anywhere that there is a realistic estimation of how much money a typical company actually saves (or how much new business they have gotten) based upon their being ISO 9001 certified.
As to China, from what I can tell there are (data from 2013 - China has 40.6 million private businesses - MarketWatch ) The number of individually owned businesses and private enterprises in China exceeded 40.6 million. Then again, according to How Many Companies in China? | China Checkup there are approximately 77,469,000 businesses in China.
350,000 ÷ 40,600,000 = 0.0862%
350,000 ÷ 77,469,000 = 0.0045%
Just some thoughts.
Re: One year to ISO 9001 and 14001 transition deadline. ISO & IAF communique'
So, if there was undisputable evidence that suppliers that comply and/or are certified to ISO 9001 are better performing, the whole global customer chain would be flowing down ISO 9001 (and certification) at a much higher rate and we would not see developed economies such as the USA and the UK dropping the need for suppliers conformance to ISO 9001, as the ISO Survey data shows.
Fair question. The intended primary beneficiary of ISO 9001 are supposed to be the customers of the organizations that follow and/or attain certification to ISO 9001. The intended benefit to the customers of the 9001-compliant organization is to provide confidence that the customers orders will be fulfilled to their expectations. As we all know, in the business world, having confidence that your supply chain will not drop the ball is priceless.
So, if there was undisputable evidence that suppliers that comply and/or are certified to ISO 9001 are better performing, the whole global customer chain would be flowing down ISO 9001 (and certification) at a much higher rate and we would not see developed economies such as the USA and the UK dropping the need for suppliers conformance to ISO 9001, as the ISO Survey data shows.
Re: One year to ISO 9001 and 14001 transition deadline. ISO & IAF communique'
I have seen other stories on the origin of ISO 9001, but I remember in 1994 speaking with a fellow whose name I can't remember, but claimed to know the story and it goes back before 1987, obviously. I remember it was a fellow from Europe and he was one of the people giving a Lead Auditor course (the first one of several I took over the years).
Essentially he said it came from the problem in Europe (as the EU was developing - think back to the 1960's and the "Common Market" as Europe continued to rise from the ashes of WW II) between countries where, for example, if a person/company in Germany bought from a company in Italy, and, for example, some was killed by a product. Liability. This was especially critical when it came to automotive and products with potential safety issues. The original ISO 9001 was meant to ensure companies had certain documented systems and certain records which imposed upon them a liability aspect and would allow that to "cross borders". What it really came down to was a company having documented processes with records of having followed procedures. The original "Say what you do, do what you say, and document that you did".
Did it work? I guess it did to some degree, but over time ISO 9001's role was made obsolete by subsequent requirements specific countries have made and standards such as AS9100 and the oh so numerous medical device and drug standards (to address only 2 industries).
And you can see some of the downfall of its original intent in the elimination of required procedures and records. It now claims: "The new ISO 9001 promotes enhanced leadership involvement in the management system, introduces risk-based thinking and aligns the quality management system policy and objectives with the strategy of the organisation..." As if companies did not assess risk before, and as if upper management is now going to be more involved because ISO 9001 says they have to. And "Realising the benefits of the new versions will deliver improved performance." And a) define performance, and b) what evidence is there that ISO 9001 has been a significant driver in companies improving? This is a sales pitch - No more, no less.
I do want to say - I'm in no way "anti-" ISO 9001. It isn't bad per se. It's just that it is simplistic and really easy to comply with. In 1990 when I first saw it I said that it was totally basic requirements and I had never seen anything so simple before. My opinion hasn't changed.
I have seen other stories on the origin of ISO 9001, but I remember in 1994 speaking with a fellow whose name I can't remember, but claimed to know the story and it goes back before 1987, obviously. I remember it was a fellow from Europe and he was one of the people giving a Lead Auditor course (the first one of several I took over the years).
Essentially he said it came from the problem in Europe (as the EU was developing - think back to the 1960's and the "Common Market" as Europe continued to rise from the ashes of WW II) between countries where, for example, if a person/company in Germany bought from a company in Italy, and, for example, some was killed by a product. Liability. This was especially critical when it came to automotive and products with potential safety issues. The original ISO 9001 was meant to ensure companies had certain documented systems and certain records which imposed upon them a liability aspect and would allow that to "cross borders". What it really came down to was a company having documented processes with records of having followed procedures. The original "Say what you do, do what you say, and document that you did".
Did it work? I guess it did to some degree, but over time ISO 9001's role was made obsolete by subsequent requirements specific countries have made and standards such as AS9100 and the oh so numerous medical device and drug standards (to address only 2 industries).
And you can see some of the downfall of its original intent in the elimination of required procedures and records. It now claims: "The new ISO 9001 promotes enhanced leadership involvement in the management system, introduces risk-based thinking and aligns the quality management system policy and objectives with the strategy of the organisation..." As if companies did not assess risk before, and as if upper management is now going to be more involved because ISO 9001 says they have to. And "Realising the benefits of the new versions will deliver improved performance." And a) define performance, and b) what evidence is there that ISO 9001 has been a significant driver in companies improving? This is a sales pitch - No more, no less.
I do want to say - I'm in no way "anti-" ISO 9001. It isn't bad per se. It's just that it is simplistic and really easy to comply with. In 1990 when I first saw it I said that it was totally basic requirements and I had never seen anything so simple before. My opinion hasn't changed.
Re: One year to ISO 9001 and 14001 transition deadline. ISO & IAF communique'
Countries such as the UK (the earliest adopter in ISO 9001 certification) and the USA (the largest economy in the World) saw the numbers of ISO 9001 certificates dropping significantly.
People can try to spin it any way they want, but I don't buy their nonsense.
Another data point. According to the survey, the number of ISO 9001 certificates grew 7% in 2016. When you scrutinize the data, you realize that China accounts for 80% of the alleged growth. 80% :mg:
Countries such as the UK (the earliest adopter in ISO 9001 certification) and the USA (the largest economy in the World) saw the numbers of ISO 9001 certificates dropping significantly.
People can try to spin it any way they want, but I don't buy their nonsense.
Similar threads
