Companies stating ISO Compliant without ISO Certification

[Randy]

Moved from companies stating ISO Compliant..

This may not be a loophole in the strictest sense of the word, but I think it is an area that bares examination and clarification. It would be the same as a company saying that their measuring devices are compliant to NIST standards hoping that people would interpret it as traceable in an unbroken line to NIST.

Doug

No it's not the same. There is a greater lack of potential for litigation, civil or criminal, for claiming to having a system you manage your organizational processes by than claiming to use correct methods to insure products or materials meet legal or other requirements.

And your expertise in the ISO world is?

 

[Helmut Jilling]

This may not be a loophole in the strictest sense of the word, but I think it is an area that bares examination and clarification. It would be the same as a company saying that their measuring devices are compliant to NIST standards hoping that people would interpret it as traceable in an unbroken line to NIST.

Doug

Perhaps, a few people may interpret it this way, if they are unfamiliar with the ISO and calibration worlds. And it is possible that a company management is hoping for that, since they also may be unfamiliar.

A greater probability would be that experienced customers would quickly surmise the company is ducking below the radar and unwilling to get certification. A wise buyer would quickly demand to see what this claim is based on. An uninformed buyer may get fooled. But, that may be what his lack of training and experience deserves.

I don't like companies that cheat, but I don't think that is cheating if they clearly state they are only "complying," not "certified."

 

[silentrunning]

No it's not the same. There is a greater lack of potential for litigation, civil or criminal, for claiming to having a system you manage your organizational processes by than claiming to use correct methods to insure products or materials meet legal or other requirements.

And your expertise in the ISO world is?

My "expertise" is very limited. I am here to learn and share ideas. Since you seem to be bothered by anyone who feels differently than you, I will be sure to steer clear of any of your posts in the future.

Doug

 

[Duke Okes]

When the ISO 9001 standard was first developed it was not for certification/registration purposes. That was just something that developed separately, likely driven by the EU Directives.

Companies claim compliance to standards, etc. all the time. For example, by default we expect companies to comply with GAAP, which Enron+ proved to be false.

There are obviously many problems with the 9001 registration process, including registrars who (under another name) will help you install the QMS, registration auditors who don't have a clue (and are imposing their narrow views), and the conflict of interest where registrars are being paid by their customers.

We could also point out problems with the drivers license process, medical/legal/engineering licenses, etc. The world is not, and never will be, perfect. That's why quality professionals have jobs!!!

 

[Helmut Jilling]

My "expertise" is very limited. I am here to learn and share ideas. Since you seem to be bothered by anyone who feels differently than you, I will be sure to steer clear of any of your posts in the future.

Doug

Ahh, Doug, don't be too put off by Randy's comments sometimes...that is just part of his loveable and charming personality. His bark is worse than his bite. He really is a good guy and has lots of good insight.

You may even come to enjoy it at some point down the line... It keeps the Cove more interesting if we occasionally have some firecrackers. Many of us wrestle with each other from time to time. Keeps the place lively.

Welcome!

 

[Randy]

No, don't steer clear of anything. I'm honestly curious about your background. You have noted that you were seeking FDA information which is highly regulated and ISO systems are a bit different.

The ISO "Systems" community has understood for years that an organization can make a claim without 3rd party involvement...part of verifying that type of claim normally results in what is known as the 2nd Party or Supplier audit.

The 3rd party registration process helps to reduce or eliminate the need for those supplier audits and therefore (theoretically at least) add validity to everything.

 

[Duke Okes]

My "expertise" is very limited. I am here to learn and share ideas. Since you seem to be bothered by anyone who feels differently than you, I will be sure to steer clear of any of your posts in the future. Doug

Don't pay any attention to Randy ... he can't even spell, as indicated by the quote after his posts "Our scars are reminders that out past is real – Hannibal Lecter" ('out' should be 'our').

That's just a poke, Randy! Don't shoot!

 

[Randy]

Thanks Duke, now I really feel bad.

 

[chaosweary]

Another example is not a curve ball, but a slider ... Some registrars are allowing companies to register certain products / product lines to a particular standard even though the standard is a management system standard and not a product standard. Then the companies go off and tell their customers that they are registered to that particular standard.

 

[HSSE Auditor]

Don't pay any attention to Randy ... he can't even spell, as indicated by the quote after his posts "Our scars are reminders that out past is real – Hannibal Lecter" ('out' should be 'our').

That's just a poke, Randy! Don't shoot!

Here is another example. :truce:

Originally Posted by Randy

It's not a loophole and never has been. This has been a well established fact for over 20 years now.

The risk is more to the claimant because they may be asked to actually prove thier claim.