Sidney Vianna said:
What exactly is the message, Allan? Please tell us.
It is a well known fact that some Registrars grew by leaps and bounds by being the path of least resistance. Rubber stamping is the name of their game. Others, on the other extreme, think that by being blindlingly rigid and unflexible, are bringing "integrity" to the process.
It seems to me the message of the market is in the various postings made in the Cove concerning: the loss of registrations, as currently under discussion in that other thread; the 2:1 vote inferring Covers think some kind of recommendation/ suggsetion whatever should be made.
Sidney Vianna said:
It is a well known fact that some Registrars grew by leaps and bounds by being the path of least resistance. Rubber stamping is the name of their game. Others, on the other extreme, think that by being blindlingly rigid and unflexible, are bringing "integrity" to the process.
Registrars grew in leaps and bounds because, first, registration became a major thing in Europe (especially Britain) which was demanded by a lot of major companies who, in Britain, actually were nationalised industries. Bearing in mind how huge was the then public sector purchasing power, it was small wonder so many firms felt compelled (and were compelled) to get the "paper".
The boom in the American and other markets occurred as it was believed firms exporting to Europe would need to have the CE mark etc for which it was to be "mandatory" to be registered to ISO 9K. So, to protect their market share, the firms rushed to get their paper on the wall. Indeed, there were all kinds of rumblings that requiring ISO 9K certs was a non-tariff barrier to trade. Rather than fight the issue, CEOs of large corporations simply instructed the paper should be obtained. Being that they account for such a large slice of commercial contracts and they thought the standard mandated supplier certification in train, they started requiring their suppliers be certified.
Of course, all of this was accompanied by the "Emperor's suit of clothes" type of story about how beneficial would be certification for increasing market share, improving the "bottom line" and so forth.
Sidney Vianna said:
ISO 9001: gigantic waste OR beneficial? This has been answered many, many times. Let me refresh your memory.
Thank you for the kind offer, but I am following the other thread which is debatiung precisley this point. And, as I have posted there, the headline question (of the thread) has not been answered. I do note your views.
Sidney Vianna said:
You seem to think that the Registrars and Accreditors are the ones that could affect changes to make this whole process meaningful and sustainable. Wrong.
No I do not. Unless and until they recognise the kind of service, I believe, firms need. I have waited patiently for many years for registrars to provide a value-added service. If they really could effect the kind of changes needed, they would have been inundated with additional business and the number of registrations would be increasing, not falling. Further, they would have a greater proportion of the World's firms as clients, as I have also observed, elsewhere in the last few days.
Sidney Vianna said:
Few Registrars are trying to make changes the way we operate to make our services more meaningful, but as long as the market place perceives ISO certificates as an attribute rather than a variable, the 3rd party certification process will leave a lot to be desired.
Of course, just my opinion
Yes, I quite agree. But, what business ultimately survives if it does not continuously improve its service (process)? And as it loses clients, the market place is giving it a message, Sidney.