Gaping holes beginning to appear in the bow of Battleship ISO

[lean_machine]

with these quotes from Trevor Smith, the new TC 176 Chair (reported in the october issue of QSU):
------------------------------------------------
"In some parts of the world ISO 9001 does face a crisis because there isn't the pull there used to be."

"I don't think anybody will really know until the last minute (the extent to which companies may drop their ISO 9000 certification or registration). I think some will. But I guess the question is. whose fault is it that they drop off? Do they drop off because they are truly not interested in making the grade of the new standard?"

"If the credibility of the standard becomes an issue, experts will have to ask themselves, 'Why is the credibility of the standard in question?' Is it because the standard itself isn't relevant anymore? Is it because certification bodies are not managing themselves properly?? Accreditation bodies likewise? Is it because of the perceived value of the registration?"
------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Trevor Smith's remarks demonstrate how much the thinking of even people involved in the ISO process has become warped and conditioned by the third-party industry. When he equates the drop off in certifications to companies "not interested in making the grade of the new standard", it shows how perverted the whole process has become. Companies should be using the ISO 9000:2000 model because it is useful and brings value, not because achieving certification to it implies a "higher grade" over the 1994 edition. ISO 9000 is destined to become a victim of its own success - because it got hitched to the wrong horse, the certification industry.

Cheers,

Lean

 

[lean_machine]

Dr. Eicher knew what was going on and he said so just before his untimely death. Trevor Smith and the rest of the ISO TC 176 who met in Acapulco recently to "make the whole transition process more user friendly" just don't get it: if there's no certification there's no "transition process". Companies who had adopted the 1994 version and derived real value from it would be more than willing to port over to the new requirements without the additional pressure of having to make a "new grade".

It's all starting to unravel and with only 10-20% of the certification base transitioned over to date, you can just see these guys squirming as the goose that almost laid the golden egg begins to seize up. Cheers,

Lean (and mean)

 

[Mike S.]

lean_machine said:

Companies who had adopted the 1994 version and derived real value from it would be more than willing to port over to the new requirements without the additional pressure of having to make a "new grade".
Cheers,
Lean (and mean)

Lean,

Or, maybe if they were happy and "derived real value from" the 1994 version they would just stick with it. They might find they were already doing most of what 2000 contained -- the important parts at least -- and so they might skip the hassle of re-documenting altogether. Just a thought...