Are 'Quality' Standard Certifications slowly losing their Credibility?

[MIREGMGR]

Re: Quality Certification slowly losing their Credibility?

Sweeping generalizations must be challenged when they're incorrect, lest the junior participants here be misled into thinking they're true.

When certification is a must for being listed as a supplier,whom do an average supplier choose? a strict certifying organization or a leanient one?

Our primary focus is medical devices, for which certification is essential. We chose to go with one of the largest, most rigorously reputed NBs because we wanted that rigor. I don't have knowledge of everyone in the device industry, of course, but we've been told by auditors from some of our larger multinational customers that a similar attitude is common among our direct competitors.

My inference would be that the quoted statement probably has it backwards, i.e. medical device organizations that want to be successful are motivated to choose the strongest continuous-improvement help they can find...at least in the US and Canada.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: Quality Certification slowly losing their Credibility?

Sweeping generalizations must be challenged when they're incorrect, lest the junior participants here be misled into thinking they're true.

What's being missed here is the idea that perceptions are inevitably affected by culture, and what might be commonplace in one part of the world is different on the other side of the globe. For an example, see this post and the thread in general.

 

[howste]

Re: Quality Certification slowly losing their Credibility?

Well, if you certify a company it is in your list of customers at least for the next three years.

The company was "enlisted" by someone else before the auditor became involved. Your implication is that the auditor is being lenient to try to make sure they'll stay their client for the 3-year certification cycle.

During the TS certification process if the auditor is thorough, and the company doesn't like it, what can they do? They can complain and ask the CB to not send the auditor back. The TS Rules mandate that the registrar keeps the same auditor through the 3 year cycle unless they have prior approval by the oversight body. How many CBs do you think will try to get approval to switch auditors because they were doing their job? I've never seen it.

I do have personal experience with the opposite. At a company I used to work for, the CB auditor for one manufacturing site was spending too much time socializing, wasting time, and not being thorough at all. The company requested that the auditor not return, and provided evidence of why they didn't want the auditor back. The auditor never came back.

Another option for a company if they want a lenient auditor is for them to switch registrars. Apart from the costs associated with them breaking their contract, the TS Rules don't allow them to switch registrars until all nonconformities are resolved. This means that they still have to address the nonconformities to the satisfaction of the auditor/CB. They are also not allowed to switch CB's more often than 3 years, so they can't just keep switching until they find one they like.

I'm not offended when people take an opposing point of view to one of mine, by the way. And I'm willing to debate a topic when I find it of interest and if the dewbate is worthwhile. But I do think that such a sweeping generalisation (and you know it's a contentious position that you took) needs to be accompanied by either specific data or more information on what led you to take that position.

Instead, you've done the reverse - taken a position, not provided any data or specifics, and then when people disagreed with you, you ask that other people provide the data to support their opinion. Interesting.

This pretty well sums up my thoughts. I'm not offended if you say that there are some auditors out there that aren't doing what they're supposed to do. That's something I agree with. But broad statements about auditors and CB's in general - without evidence - does bother me.

The present system of certification needs reforms.

What are your specific recommendations?

I believe that reforms have been continually implemented by the IATF and oversight bodies for years. It's a gradual process for continual improvement. The rules today in the automotive industry are very different than they were 10 years ago.

When the system allows certification to become a profit making business there is a conflict of interests here.One interest is to be an efficient certifying organization.Another interest is to make more profits by increasing the clientale.

Again, what are your specific recommendations? Are you suggesting that auditors and CB's shouldn't be paid for their work?

Some have suggested that there be only one CB that handles the whole process, to avoid the competition. Ask someone in the aerospace industry about the NADCAP process and see how they feel about that approach...

I agree that the system is not perfect. At the same time, I don't believe it's as bad as the picture you've painted.

 

[AndyN]

Re: Quality Certification slowly losing the credibility?

And the demographics in the eastern half of the US equates to those of India (in this regard) exactly how?

Jim, there wasn't any qualification criteria defined (in the poster's comments) regarding the region they based their comments on............

Therefore, it was taken a broad statement of all regions, certification bodies and their auditors - otherwise the poster would've qualified it, wouldn't they?

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: Quality Certification slowly losing the credibility?

Jim, there wasn't any qualification criteria defined (in the poster's comments) regarding the region they based their comments on............

Therefore, it was taken a broad statement of all regions, certification bodies and their auditors - otherwise the poster would've qualified it, wouldn't they?

The user is posting from India, and there's no reason to believe that he's as familiar with practices in the eastern US as you are. We have to take into account the fact that the US (and the western world in general) are not the center of the universe.

 

[AndyN]

Re: Quality Certification slowly losing the credibility?

The user is posting from India, and there's no reason to believe that he's as familiar with practices in the eastern US as you are. We have to take into account the fact that the US (and the western world in general) are not the center of the universe.

Well, yes Jim, however, we have many people here who do have international experience in many countries - I don't believe it is clear that the poster was speaking only of India, or their province (locality) or even a specific industry........

It was an sweeping generalization and, as we have stated many times before, comments such as this can be read by people who 'stop by', without fully absorbing these contextual issues......

 

[JaneB]

Re: Quality Certification slowly losing the credibility?

I fully agree that I have hurt the feelings of some people.

Agree with who? VJ, I think you're missing the point by insisting on believing your posts had this effect. I'm not sure (again) how you reached this conclusion either.

I don't see evidence in this thread of 'hurt feelings'. If feelings are hurt, this is most often evident via kneejerk postings in response, usually high in emotional language and wild/inaccurate statements, and very low on thoughtful responses which explore and address the issue at hand.

I don't see that occurring - instead I see a number of measured and thoughtful responses, which includes considerations of the possibility of differences by region or country.

There's an oft-quoted saying that goes something like: "the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different response".

The very best way to appeal to people in the Cove, and have a fruitful discussion is, in my experience and opinion, by noting Harry's words:

Experience will vary according to your countries level of development, maturity of thinking and practice in quality, business practices, culture and a hosts of others. Even within the same region of a country, two different person may have completely different experience because of the segments or clientele they served.

The golden rule is to limit discussions to your area of influence where people will find it easier to accept your views.

That's just one of the thoughtful and measured responses. Very wisely said, Harry.

Please note: I'm not rejecting out of hand the topic that lies behind your sweeping generalisation. But I do and will continue to reject it as long as you maintain is is a true statement of fact applicable everywhere. It isn't.

 

[brahmaiah]

I would like to confess here that my views are limited to my khowledge of the situation in my own country India.In India most certifying organizations are acredited by bodies located in UK,US,GERMANY.AUSTRALIA AND SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.They donot seem to have sufficient control over their licencees due to geographical and economical reasons.This has given rise to a poorly controlled situation.
Again certification is a bussiness.

Even in India the auditors will react the same way as some have done from other countries.

I hope this explanation of mine will help correct some hurt feelings.
V.J.Brahmaiah

 

[Chennaiite]

If the Certification System fails in one part of the globe while succeeding in the other, I will still attribute it to the failure of the System. As it goes without saying, any system failure needs systemic Corrective actions. The core concern really remains unanswered. Its not the concern of bad Organization being certified, rather it is certified Organization being bad. Its high time We check-in and take some actions at International level to root out this concern regardless of Zones, regions, blaw, blaw, otherwise the credibility of the Quality Certification is at stake and I am sure the auditor fraternity dont like it either.
Thanks.

 

[JaneB]

Rules for an unedifying thread

To summarise, the rules for an unedifying thread:

1. Start a new thread in which you make a forthright and outspoken statement about a big problem you perceive. Give your thread a provocative title to attract interest.
   
2. Keep your post limited to the problem only. There's no need for any supporting data or evidence, because doing that would just cloud the real and important issue you are raising.
   
3. Make sure your statement is not limited in any way (eg, only in your country/area/area of experience or expertise). Again, anything like this would just confuse the real issue.
   
4. If there are responses that ask for data or evidence that supports your statement, they clearly don't know what you know. And they should. So insist that they provide facts or evidence to support any opinion which doesn't agree with yours.
   
5. The thread should attract at least a few posters who agree with your statement. A single one saying they agree is more than adequate to clearly demonstrate that what you say is true.
   
6. There will be some posters who disagree with you, perhaps even quite a few. But the numbers absolutely don't matter, so ignore them. And ignore everything and anything they say which doesn't agree with your point. Because your point has now in any case been confirmed as true.
   
7. You may choose to repeat your statement in one or more posts, or add some extra explanations about the problem. It's a very good idea to start sentences with words like 'I feel' or 'I believe' or 'I know', or variations such as 'everyone knows'.
   Also, use some of the following terms liberally: concern, failure, systemic failure, corrective action, root out, etc.
   
8. Given that it's true and it's terrible, someone is obviously to blame. So pick someone and blame them for the terrible situation. Remember, it's a big problem, and everyone knows it is true, so someone has to be accountable.
   
9. At all times, remember not to provide any evidence, nor data, nor any possible solutions. Doing that would completely miss the whole point.