ISO 9001 News Annual ISO Survey of Management System Certificate Numbers - September 2023

[Sidney Vianna]

The 2017 ISO Survey is now available. Point your browsers to Committee 9. ISO Survey of certifications to management system standards - Full results

Despite the continual proliferation of ISO Management System Standards, the flagship, ISO 9001, showed a 4% decline in number of accredited certificates from 2016 to 2017, what is worrisome for many.

As ISO 45001 has just been released, no accredited certificates to that standard existed in 2017, thus no certificates reported in this round.

In the USA, another year of significant decline in ISO 9001 certificates as well. Sad, but not surprising, as most of the people who are in charge of accredited certification keep their heads buried firm in the sand, failing to realize that certificates which do not provide assurance to stakeholders, are meaningless.

 

[AndyN]

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.

He was 'joining the dots" about Product Liability legislation and ISO 9001 Certification because they happened at about the same time. Trust me.

The British government wanted to use ISO 9001 and the third party certification process because they (the UK government) had suppliers who were audited many times by different agencies - often the government run utilities, for example. So, following a white paper on quality and competitiveness, the move to one standard and independent certification came about. European product liability had nothing to do with it, other than timing.
The availability of Lead Auditor courses came about as a direct result of the need for professional standard auditors for the UK Utility companies when selecting suppliers. Jeff Monk (my auditor mentor and trainer of Rede Group) and Gordon Staples (owner of Excel Partnership UK) created what became BSI's Lead Auditor course, for the purposes of teaching Gas Board supplier auditors.

 

[AndyN]

I did have to laugh at one part of the Wiki entry: "...In the early days, the ISO 9001 (9002 and 9003) requirements were intended to be used by procuring organizations, as the basis of contractual arrangements with their suppliers. This helped reduce the need for "supplier development" by establishing basic requirements for a supplier to assure product quality..." Yeah, just like QS-9000 was supposed to reduce customer audits. Supplier development, my tail end. Idealistic talk, at best.

Since I was in Supply Chain management at this very time, I can assure you it's EXACTLY what ISO 9001/2/3 was intended for - before Certification came along! Don't forget that QS-9000 isn't an international standard like ISO 9001 is, it was simply the Big 3's supplier requirements in one book, based on ISO 9001:1994 by Russ Jacobs, Radley Smith et al. Hardly comparable.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The 2018 Edition of the annual ISO Survey should come out at the end of August 2019. I created an animated chart showing the top 10 countries, by number of ISO 9001 certificates in the period 1993 through 2017. If you click on the chart below, the animated graphic will open.
The source of the dataset is the ISO Survey, available @ Committee 09. ISO Survey of certifications to management system standards - Full results

​

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The 2018 ISO Survey dataset is now available @ The ISO Survey The ISO 9001 numbers show another (major) drop and ISO is not providing "meaningful commentary" on the reasons for yet another decline. Their comments are:

The overall total number of valid certificates was lower than in 2017. The reasons for the decrease are related to the participation and can be categorized into three categories:

• Some large certification bodies reported in past surveys the number of certificates that included the number of sites. In this survey, they have split the number of certificates and the number of sites which led to important reduction in the number of certificates reported.
• The data reported by some large certification bodies fluctuates from one year to another.
• Some providers of data adjusted the way they report the number of sectors covered by their certificates with the separation of the two questions in the 2018 survey questionnaire (they were linked in past surveys which led to some confusion in the case of multi sectors certificates)
• Some certification bodies that are important in some countries did not participate.

For the reasons listed above, ISO decided to publish the 2018 results without the past results. With the adjustments made by some of the providers of data in relation with the number of certificates, sites and sectors, the comparison of the figures on the number of valid certificates with the past survey would not lead to accurate conclusions. The level of valid certificates in 2018 is a better reflection of the situation in the market.

Funny, that, when the survey results showed double digit growth, year-on-year, there was not much concern over "accurate conclusions". Maybe ISO should create a standard for counting certificates.

The downward spiral continues and, if the data for 2018 is reliable, it means that 1/3 of all ISO 9001 certificates in the World are in China. The USA with around 21,000 ISO 9001 certificates, numbers so low, not seen since the 1998-1999 period. Just to compare, the (brilliant) OASIS database shows over 9,100 AS91X0 certified sites in the USA alone. The robust and value added conformity assessment scheme devised and deployed by the IAQG seems to be prospering and showing sustainable involvement.

The "leadership" of the management system certification sector should be worried, very worried, as the commoditization, trivialization, low-cost approach to certification is CLEARLY not working.

 

[Candi1024]

Ok, I get it. So if my measurements are trending down, I could simply not display the previous measurements. Thus, there would be no need for root cause or actions for improvement. And it would leave management with a better impression.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

ISO has always spun the news in a positive manner, but it looks like the 2018 numbers are so surprisingly down that there is no possible believable spinning this time. They will probably focus on ISO 45001 and 37001 growth as 9001, their bestseller document of all time, is clearly losing momentum, in most of the world. Looking back now, is quite evident that the numbers reported through the ISO SURVEY over the years have been very unreliable. Who knows, we might have erroneously believed for over a decade that the number of ISO 9001 certified had surpassed the 1 million mark. Maybe that number was wrong all along.

Maybe the ISO Secretariat will be dropping their ISO 9001 certificate as well.

The ISO 9001 Brand Integrity group must be working nonstop to devise good justifications and explain the recent downtrend developments. As I have been warning for the last 15 years, an OASIS-like database for the ISO Management System Standards would have been a huge positive change in the certification sector and it is highly unlikely that the IAF CertSearch database will fill the need.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

And ISO has released (without any fanfare), the 2019 ISO Survey. One can access the data @ Committee 09. ISO Survey of certifications to management system standards - Full results

Despite the silly attempts to spin the numbers, in the USA, we saw a 4% contraction in the number of ISO 9001 certificates, during the last period. Meanwhile, the data from the IAF Certsearch database continues to be utterly inadequate.

Will these people ever listen?

Edit. I checked a data point between the 2 excel files to see if the numbers matched. Surprise, surprise: they don't. The FIRST spreadsheet lists
20,956 ISO 9001 certificates in the USA. The second one adds up to 14,646 ISO 9001 certificates in the USA. Can these people be that INEPT?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I checked a data point between the 2 excel files to see if the numbers matched. Surprise, surprise: they don't. The FIRST spreadsheet lists 20,956 ISO 9001 certificates in the USA. The second one adds up to 14,646 ISO 9001 certificates in the USA. Can these people be that INEPT?

ISO released a NEW version of one of the two Excel files today (September 8th). Still, the numbers don't match for ISO 9001 certificates in the USA. Data integrity, anyone? What a concept....

 

[Marc]

Your expectations are much too high for what has become, realistically, a relatively useless, but still to some a lucrative, "standard".