Another ethical breach for an ISO 9001 certified company?

[Jim Wynne]

The new standard expects and requires companies to anticipate the customer's perception while meeting their specific requirements.

This is way too vague. If my perception is that GM, for example, is run by a bunch of myopic doofuses, and if then they engage in non-doofus behavior, thereby not anticipating my perceptions...

If the court were to hold that in certain products, the public was the customer, then it holds that the perception by the public of an audit could include reliance on the certified company performing the activities to meet their requirements.

Such reliance would have to be reasonable and prudent, and those adjectives do not describe anyone who thinks that ISO registration is evidence of (or a reliable predictor of) output quality.

 

[D.Scott]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The fact that the CB and auditor and everybody else says there is no statement made to the quality of the product would have no bearing in a court of law if the court acknowledged the public perception of the CB certification implied that all requirements had been met. The additional statement by the CB that customer specific requirements are also met further complicates the issue.

All that is needed is for the court to acknowledge the public as the customer (which the Big 3 does in their system) and the CB and/or auditor can be held a party to the action. The fact that they are likely to be dismissed is neither here nor there. The key is to have them named as a party. Once included, their whole process of certification becomes part of the case. If it can be established that there was evidence of incompetence, malpractice, errors or omissions, they can and probably will be enjoined as a defendant.

I understand I am stretching the current case a bit but tort law carries some big rewards for lawyers and they are very happy to name as many parties as the paper can list. It seems wild, I know, but how many times have we heard about somebody suing McDonald's because the hot coffee was too hot or suing Bic because they got burned after lighting a lighter.

Dave

 

[Wes Bucey]

I actually like Carl's concept, carried to an absurd extreme:

Print a big bold expiration date on the front and back of each vest under the graphic of a bullseye (like Target's logo - in red)

"Bullseye valid after [date]"
That way, the vests wouldn't have to be recalled. The manufacturer could just send out a stencil and spray paint or ink and let each vest holder mark his own!

 

[Paul Simpson]

How honest is the assessment process?

Fascinating story. As with a lot of other posters the main question in my mind is: How much was the auditor aware of?

My guess is that the problems with fibre degradation never made it into the public domain. This begs another question: If not, why not?

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Another story where, allegedly, greed supersedes ethics. In this case, the company advertises being ISO 9001:2000 certified. For sure, if the facts in the article contained at http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075-1799109,00.html are true, the clear cut requirement of “…When nonconforming product is detected after delivery or use has started, the organization shall take action appropriate to the effects, or potential effects, of the nonconformity….” was totally ignored. Obviously, for this company, to lose their ISO 9001 certificate is the least of their problems, but I wonder if this topic has ever been brought up during one of their audits.

Not to make light of a very serious topic, but the other posters already made the good points.

Art imitates life, or life imitates art? It's very late night and I had an amusing thought. In the early years of ISO, everyone liked to joke that ISO didn't care if a company made concrete lif vests, as long as they followed their work instructions...

Well, I didn't buy that argument then, and I sure don't buy it now.

If this is true, I liked the suggestion that the execs be fitted with old vests and have some customers try out some test shots.

 

[Randy]

I actually like Carl's concept, carried to an absurd extreme:

Print a big bold expiration date on the front and back of each vest under the graphic of a bullseye (like Target's logo - in red)

"Bullseye valid after [date]"
That way, the vests wouldn't have to be recalled. The manufacturer could just send out a stencil and spray paint or ink and let each vest holder mark his own!

Ha, Ha!! That's funny

My 1st wife really got upset when I put a bullseye on my vest In fact it was a pretty common practice at the time...kinda like putting the iron-on "Home of the Wopper" on the front of your shorts :mg:

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The company's website http://www.secondchance.com/content.asp?contentID=2 states:

To achieve our personal protection mission we have established these Operating Principles:
1. Constant focus on meeting and/or exceeding each individual customer’s needs.
2. World leadership in product designs, high value and competitive prices.
3. Unimpeachable market conduct and integrity; truthful, ethical product representation.
4. Unsurpassed, continuously improving quality, in all facets of our operation.
5. Minimum organizational structure; maximum participatory management.
6. Equal opportunity and respect for human differences.
7. Individual empowerment; positive, stimulating work environment.
8. Strong supplier partnerships that optimize product wearability and performance.
9. Fair and reasonable profits that support jobs, R&D growth, and diversification.
10. Corporate citizenship, officer safety education, and appropriate public sector relations.

In all fainess, their warranty statement available at https://secure2.villagepress.com/secondchance/warranty.html states

WARRANTY PERIODS

The warranty period for the CARRIER is 18 months from the date of purchase. The warranty period for the BALLISTIC PANELS is five years from the date of purchase.

So, if this same warranty was in place, the products would be non-conforming IF they lost their performance (degraded) prior to the stated periods.

 

[Caster]

There's another way to look at this.

Imagine if they had immediately called a press conference to hand the President a new vest.

If they chartered an airplane to fly replacements to the soldiers in Iraq.

If the CEO just stated "we found a problem, and we're going to make it right, then worry about the cost". Perhaps even squirt a out a little tear at the press conference.

Do you think CNN might cover that? For 2 or 3 days anyway!

How much free publicity would that be? How much goodwill would they generate? Think of the brand awareness.

The problem disappears because the action is so strong.

I only buy Tylenol, and will to the day I die. I trust them completely becasue they did the right thing, took the financial hit and emerged stronger.

**** these guys to heck...they put your President and troops in harms way.

Aside: About 5 years ago, I had a job interview with a firm that wove Kevlar cloth. One of the uses was for body armor. They had a firing range in the building, and every batch got shot with a rifle (among many, many other tests). The city police chief came in to do these tests. My hope is any failure would be really hard to ignore in such a public test.

 

[Jen Kirley]

About 5 years ago, I had a job interview with a firm that wove Kevlar cloth. One of the uses was for body armor. They had a firing range in the building, and every batch got shot with a rifle (among many, many other tests). The city police chief came in to do these tests. My hope is any failure would be really hard to ignore in such a public test.

I think that's an important point. The test was being done on, I presume, newly manufactured vests. What testing is done on a longer scale, to see how the fabric holds up under use?

I noticed how the FDA is reverting its position back to insisting on longer trial studies for drugs, after caving in to pressure from parmaceuticals and others to shorten the wait to bring promising drugs to market. Catastrophic drug effects were found after years of use--"found" means enough failure data was collected on them to reach the red-button point of yanking the product.

Similarly, I wonder how specific was the testing on Bridgestone tires, since the ones that failed were usually on heavy vehicles (Ford Explorer) rear right wheel (when in two wheel drive, the wheel with greatest torque and thus stress/friction on the tire) and a hot environment. (And of course, the lower inflation but not always.)

Modern product development focuses on quick entry into the market. Given a lack of long-term, scientifically controlled data collection, product and process data (also supplier control trouble) is collected via end use feedback. Our latest space shuttle mission was made essentially with fingers crossed. Management, in so many words, said: "We've done all the analyzing we reasonably could and we'll be basically testing our work with this mission." Result? The foam problem was not resolved (new failure data collected in the only way NASA knew how to collect it: under normal operating conditions) but with hyper attention the problem was decided to not ensure failure. The (better controlled than last time) experiment worked: the shuttle came home safely.

So, I wonder how much is understood about why this or that Kevlar woven product fails; if it degrades more aggressively under what environment; if there was a chemical, manufacturing process or other problem that results in failure. How steep the failure curve is--at what time point it is known to become risky enough to pull product.

So while I certainly agree that the company should have tracked performance and recalled the product, not knowing the various factors (including what they knew about how well processes were followed, how deeply or for how long a company is required to test its product for expected performance) I am unsure if that failure alone would necessarily result in ISO decertification.

I guess that is arguably the greatest value in litigation: it's potentially the best way to get such operational data publicized so people can learn from others' mistakes and try to avoid them (I dare to hope).

 

[jcbodie]

I also agree that if the auditor knew what was going on concerning the hiding of the facts that they would (and likely should) be held accountable.

That said, any quality, environmental, financial, or other audit is not designed to catch fraud. Think about this: who knows where the skeletons are? Who designed the system that created them?

Usually when fraud is detected during an audit it is a result of an auditor being diligent AND someone within the company making a mistake that reveals the misdeed. No diligence or no mistake, and the skeleton rests comfortably in his closet.

Agree completely. I can't imagine that most 3rd Party Auditors would not report this type of issue, IF they found it (I would also add to Craigs' 3rd paragraph...OR finding a brave soul within the company, who was willing to be "deep throat" and use the Registrar Auditor as the vehicle for getting the message out. As a matter of fact, the Registrars I've worked for insist that you document and report to the Registrar (not necessarily as part of the Audit Report) any safety issues or nagging concerns, which may or may not be within the jurisdiction of an NCR write-up against the QMS or the Standard (and, you also have the authority and backing to leave any facility that you feel is dangerous, irrespective of whether the audit gets completed or not). Additionally, many 3rd Party Auditors (particularly subcontractors) are required to take out insurance to protect themselves and the Registrar, from being sued, for their actions (or, in this case, if they were aware of the situation and did nothing, their lack of action). If I saw documents that indicated these vests were faulty/dangerous, aside from doing the right thing ethically, common sense and basic business practice says I would also want to make sure that I, as a 3rd party Registrar Auditor covered my :ca: , so no one could pull me into the lawsuit.

In this case, I'd be willing to bet that the 3rd Party Auditor had no knowledge of this, since any documentation that might be available, would have been at the highest level and tucked safely away in the Legal dept.

Sadly, one of the limitations of ISO can be that 3rd Party Auditors are suppose to assume "innocence, until proven guilty" and some of what is audited is completely on the Honor System (I ask to see the companys' complaints and NCR's and Product NC issues, since the last Registrar visit, and am forced to assume they are being honest with me, as I am with them). I do not represent OSHA, FDA or any other regulatory agency, that can demand or subpoena records. Let us not forget this is a VOLUNTARY association (Even if you are "forced" to do this for your customers, it is really still voluntary, as your company is always free to reinvent itself and pursue new markets or other customers). It is suppose to be an environment of open and fair exchange, with the added focus on meeting contractual requirements and continuous improvement, fostered by the companys' honesty with revealing themselves and the 3rd Party Auditor being "firm, but fair". DISCLAIMER TO ALL THE ANTI-ISO AND/OR ANTI-ISO REGISTRATION FOLKS: I'm not saying ISO or the System is perfect and that the above is always achieved. It relies on both sides of the fence being open and honest. 3rd Party Auditors can only work with what they are shown by the company and what they are allowed to witness, etc. We are not Fraud Investigators. And I'm pretty sure the Internal Auditors (if aware) aren't going to be eager to write these things up either. JMHOFWIW