You have to love this. Its very creative. This company claims to be certifed to Implemented Self Governing 9000 (ISG-9000). Check out the certificate and quallity manual.
Certified to ISG 9000 - A 'Self Certification' Scheme
- Thread starter Al Rosen
- Start date
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
Wes Bucey
Prophet of Profit
It appears, from a cursory review, the organization is a "broker" which does no manufacturing of its own - correct me if I missed something.
(The seal making machines don't make the entire line, only "about 100 different types," but it would certainly fill the bill if you had a need for a replacement for a downed production machine.)
This doesn't make them bad - if they really do put effort into quality review, it's always nice to have some eyes, but it appears all they really do is review the paperwork coming from a supplier.
Not a bad idea, though, "self-declaring" - you just have to be ready to back it up if a customer wants to audit.
I self-declared for years, AND I was able to back it up.
(Should we send an email, pointing out the typo on the Quality Department home page?)
(The seal making machines don't make the entire line, only "about 100 different types," but it would certainly fill the bill if you had a need for a replacement for a downed production machine.)
This doesn't make them bad - if they really do put effort into quality review, it's always nice to have some eyes, but it appears all they really do is review the paperwork coming from a supplier.
Not a bad idea, though, "self-declaring" - you just have to be ready to back it up if a customer wants to audit.
I self-declared for years, AND I was able to back it up.
(Should we send an email, pointing out the typo on the Quality Department home page?)
Last edited:
Read it!
Guys, as long as your customers are happy with that, self declaration of compliance to standards is the way to go. However, when you read more carefully what this organization is declaring, basically they are stating that they have a system in place to attain compliance to each customer PO's. They could also have stated that they intend to comply with all applicable laws as well as being profitable.... The duh factor
The manual does not satisfy ISO 9001:2000. So, my impression is that they create a fancy cert with a fancy seal - after all they are the "seal man". And hope that it flies. Nothing wrong with that.
Guys, as long as your customers are happy with that, self declaration of compliance to standards is the way to go. However, when you read more carefully what this organization is declaring, basically they are stating that they have a system in place to attain compliance to each customer PO's. They could also have stated that they intend to comply with all applicable laws as well as being profitable.... The duh factor
The manual does not satisfy ISO 9001:2000. So, my impression is that they create a fancy cert with a fancy seal - after all they are the "seal man". And hope that it flies. Nothing wrong with that.
A
AllanJ
What is wrong with "self certification" - should mandated registration be abandoned?
As other Covers will be aware, an article of mine was posted in the Reading Room a few days ago. (Internal auditing and pastures new.) In it I muse why should not companies move to "self certification" and also why should mandated registration prevail in times ahead.
Sidny wearing his registrar's hat obviously sees nothing wrong if that will satisfy the customer (as I also mention in that article).
So, given the complaints etc concerning registrar performance, given that the involvement of a customer effectively negates the value of registration as a solution to the old "multiple assessment" problem, is it time to move away from mandated registration? Should Covers who are members of the quality profession advise their management to amend the company POs accordingly (perhaps along the lines I mention in that article)?
Considering, for example, in the auto industry OEMs want to be in attendance for PPAPs etc they can easily assess the supplier's systems when they come. And when a supplier is serving several OEMs ot tier ones each of which wants to do that, it seems we have returned to an era of multiple assessment, supplier verification which TS or ISO registration were intended to relieve.
Why then should such customers be interested in mandating registration? Why should they not require the use of ISO/ TS as a guide and request the supplier "self certifies"?
Sidney Vianna said:
As other Covers will be aware, an article of mine was posted in the Reading Room a few days ago. (Internal auditing and pastures new.) In it I muse why should not companies move to "self certification" and also why should mandated registration prevail in times ahead.
Sidny wearing his registrar's hat obviously sees nothing wrong if that will satisfy the customer (as I also mention in that article).
So, given the complaints etc concerning registrar performance, given that the involvement of a customer effectively negates the value of registration as a solution to the old "multiple assessment" problem, is it time to move away from mandated registration? Should Covers who are members of the quality profession advise their management to amend the company POs accordingly (perhaps along the lines I mention in that article)?
Considering, for example, in the auto industry OEMs want to be in attendance for PPAPs etc they can easily assess the supplier's systems when they come. And when a supplier is serving several OEMs ot tier ones each of which wants to do that, it seems we have returned to an era of multiple assessment, supplier verification which TS or ISO registration were intended to relieve.
Why then should such customers be interested in mandating registration? Why should they not require the use of ISO/ TS as a guide and request the supplier "self certifies"?
