Beating a Dead Horse?....ISO-registered or ISO-certified....THAT Is The Question

[Ajit Basrur]

I would say both "certification" and "registration" are both acceptable to be used by your Organization. Refer to page 7 of the the attachment (from the ISO webpage -http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/certification.htm

.

 

[Wes Bucey]

I would say both "certification" and "registration" are both acceptable to be used by your Organization. Refer to page 7 of the the attachment (from the ISO webpage -http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/certification.htm

.

One can hardly argue with the item as published by the organization which creates and maintains the Standards. Apparently, the powers that be consider "certified" and "registered" equal [or is that isos?]

 

[Jim Wynne]

You and I may be in the 1% of the 1% [who are even aware of the International Standards Organization headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland] who know that the organization uses the "ISO" as a word, not an abbreviation or acronym.

I, myself, only became aware of it a year or so ago when some guy at an ASQ Section meeting casually mentioned it.

Some of us are also aware that it's not International Standards Organization; it's International Organization for Standardization.

I looked up a better explanation than I could paraphraseNow - don't ask me why they leave out the "s" in "isos" - I have no clue.

I do know that "iso" is a prefix meaning equal in words like isometric, isothermal, isobar.

From the horse's mouth:

Because 'International Organization for Standardization' would have different acronyms in different languages (IOS in English, OIN in French for Organisation internationale de normalisation), our founders decided to give it the short form ISO. ISO is derived from the Greek isos, meaning equal. Whatever the country, whatever the language, the short form of our name is always ISO.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

I was a big one to use the term Registration (as opposed to Certification) years ago, but I gave that word fight up. If a company wants to say they are "certified" to ISO 9001, so be it.

Likewise: Here in Sweden most people talk about certification, and I have long since given up any attempts to enlighten anyone in that respect, but I do try to get my coworkers to use the term registration in correspondance in English.

Some things we just have to live with, but I admit that I cringed a bit last week when a truck from a supplier rolled into the plant with the text ISO 9002 Certified plastered all over its side. A few days before that, I got one of those abominable supplier surveys, and had a laughing fit when it asked whether we intended to get a BS 5750(!) certification.

Oh, well. As long as nobody calls us certifiable I am reasonably content, even if there may be some truth in that claim at times...

/Claes

 

[Mikishots]

I know we've had this discussion in the past, but I'm curious to know if anything has changed. Which is the most accurate term, in your professional opinion..... ISO:9001-certified company XYZ or ISO 9001:2008-registered company XYZ?

An accreditation body will certify a client's QMS to the ISO standard.

The most accurate method would be "Company XYZ's Quality Management System is certified to the ISO 9001:2008 standard." It needs to be made very clear that companies and/or products are not certified or registered by ISO; they're not in that business. ISO does not want anyone to be under the impression that a company or product is certified by them.

At a past company, management had made a decision to state "an ISO 9001:2000 Certified Company" in literature, and were promptly slapped with a major nonconformance by the registrar (KPMG at the time). A terse letter came from the accreditation body stating "ISO does NOT certify companies or products". Yes, you'll see examples like this all over the world and even in so-called ISO marketing tips and tricks webpages, but we had learned first hand that ISO does correct them eventually.

I should add this: ISO wants you to be very specific about the scope of your registration whenever you make statements as we've been discussing. Therefore, your first example is nonconforming. And for the love of Pete, don't ever EVER use their ISO logo. Ever.

OK, one last edit: ISO published a document titled "Publicizing Your ISO 9001:2008 or ISO 14000:2004 Certification", and they state that in the ISO 9001:2008 and ISO 14000:2004 contexts, "certified" (and "certification") and "registered" (and "registration") are equivalent in meaning and you can use either term.

 

[Marc]

They will certify a company's Quality Management System, but there will be a contractual disclaimer that their audit of a company's systems is a sample and that they are indemnified if there is one or more nonconformance, major or minor, that they do not identify in the audit.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

An accreditation body will certify a client's QMS to the ISO standard.

Not really. An accreditation body accredits certification bodies, who, in turn, issues QMS certificates.

As an example, in the USA, ANAB is an accreditation body. DNV Business Assurance is one (accredited) certification body.

 

[Mikishots]

Not really. An accreditation body accredits certification bodies, who, in turn, issues QMS certificates.

As an example, in the USA, ANAB is an accreditation body. DNV Business Assurance is one (accredited) certification body.

You are correct. I'm not sure why I would have stated this - I get asked all the time what the difference is between accreditation and certification.

Thanks for that.

 

[kgott]

I know we've had this discussion in the past, but I'm curious to know if anything has changed. Which is the most accurate term, in your professional opinion..... ISO:9001-certified company XYZ or ISO 9001:2008-registered company XYZ?

The word that I was brought up with was "certificated.' Then it be certification.