How many fail ALL ISO 9001 registration audits - How many never make it?

[AndyN]

We are on the same side of the argument Harry, but I think the perceieved value of the actual certification has been lost because the scrutinisation of the system doesn't seem to be there.

I will guarantee you we will pass the certification, but I knwo for a fact there isnt quality in some of our key processes.

Our customers will laugh about it "Department X has ISO certification...haha shows how easy it is to get certified" etc etc.

There's one vital and critically important point that is missing from this discussion. I too have heard the comments that were made about documentation and records and then audits, review etc. (You can tell your CB isn't giving much thought to 'value added audits' if it came from them).

That key point is 'effectiveness'! You mention that "there isn't quality in some of our processes" which I'm sure you have a completely objective view of, based on the performance data from those processes.......

So, since this data will be pretty obvious - it must be available for management review etc., - then only a completely incompetent auditor would miss it during the audit, especially since the org. is only meeting minimum requirements! CB's almost never recruit morons (but then I only work in Europe/USA).

You say that you think the perceived value of certification is lost............but do you have any data? If you have anything more than a bad feeling about it, then it should come to light - maybe not to the extent you would wish, since the audit is a sample, the auditor doesn't know your management culture etc. You may pass the audit in the next few days, but can it be sustained with (apparently) poor processes? I doubt it! If you are correct in your assertions, then there's another aphorism that comes to mind;

"Every dog has his day"........

 

[Jim Wynne]

You say that you think the perceived value of certification is lost............but do you have any data? If you have anything more than a bad feeling about it, then it should come to light - maybe not to the extent you would wish, since the audit is a sample, the auditor doesn't know your management culture etc. You may pass the audit in the next few days, but can it be sustained with (apparently) poor processes? I doubt it! If you are correct in your assertions, then there's another aphorism that comes to mind;
"Every dog has his day"........

I worked in a company where document control in general and configuration control in particular had holes in it that you could drive the proverbial truck through. It wasn't unusual at all, for example, to have two significantly different drawings of the same part at the same revision level. In another company, I did a survey of the closed CAs and discovered that approximately 75% hadn't come close to identifying root causes, and were never shown to be effective. In yet another company, there were parts that were continually rejected at incoming inspection and "bought off" by engineering without anything being done to correct the problem (tolerances that were almost always too tight).

In each case, there were plenty of opportunities for CB auditors to find the problems, but somehow they never did. I understand the concept of an audit being a sample and that they shouldn't be expected to catch everything, but when serious (and reasonably obvious) issues get missed (or overlooked) repeatedly, something's wrong.

I think it's a fact that's simple to see--the community of registered companies has become so saturated that the luster of registration is nonexistent. When a commodity is scarce and a lot of people want it, it becomes valuable. When everybody has it, the value is diminished. Of course, ISO certification is what you make of it, but when the bar is set so low that even companies with no legs can jump over it with relative ease no one should be surprised that certification isn't the badge of honor everyone thought it would be.

 

[AndyN]

I hear what you say, Jim. I'm also interested to hear your comments about the fact that the management in those places you cite and that the internal auditors didn't make a bigger deal of the fact that the systems/process etc weren't effective.......they too were part of the certification, weren't they?

I'm not proposing that two wrongs make it all right, but I wonder what the selection criteria for the CB was..........lowest price? If the company had such glowing issues, why didn't they ask for a more effective auditor?

It takes two to tango and clearly a client has an equal role in implementing as the CB does in certifying. Happily, I believe most clients know that and can justify their certification to the world. A couple of bad apples are, happily, not indicative of the whole orchard...........

 

[Jim Wynne]

I hear what you say, Jim. I'm also interested to hear your comments about the fact that the management in those places you cite and that the internal auditors didn't make a bigger deal of the fact that the systems/process etc weren't effective.......they too were part of the certification, weren't they?

I already cited (in one instance) numerous times when CAs were done (some for issues discovered in IAs) and root causes/effectiveness weren't properly addressed. Practically all of what goes wrong (and right) in any company can be traced back to management, but at least part of what "independent" auditing is supposed to accomplish is to provide checks and balances. There are way too many cases where that's not happening.

I'm not proposing that two wrongs make it all right, but I wonder what the selection criteria for the CB was..........lowest price? If the company had such glowing issues, why didn't they ask for a more effective auditor?

I've never worked in a certified company where the CB was of the "cheap" variety. All were major CBs. As for asking for more "effective" auditors, it depends on what your definition of "effective" is. In many cases, "effective" means keeping the certificate on the wall in spite of obvious problems.

It takes two to tango and clearly a client has an equal role in implementing as the CB does in certifying. Happily, I believe most clients know that and can justify their certification to the world. A couple of bad apples are, happily, not indicative of the whole orchard...........

Let's go back to the beginning. The first ISO 9001 registration project I worked on was in the early 1990s, and I was actually working from a copy of BS5750. The impetus for our registration effort was the widespread and false reports--promulgatged mostly by consultants--that American companies wouldn't be able to sell products in the EU without ISO certification. While I don't recall any of the nascent CBs pushing this view, they certainly did nothing to disabuse anyone of it. Much of the perceived benefit (at the time) was built on false premises.

Another touted benefit was that customers would be able to eliminate or drastically reduce their own supplier audit activities. Another false premise, as it turned out. Yet another benefit was the "one size fits all" nature of the standard--it was supposed to be suitable for any type of manufacturing company. But it was only a few years before ISO 9000 started having babies--QS 9000 being the primary offspring.

Now, some twenty years after the first certifications, practically everyone has a lovely certificate, and American manufacturing has gone down the tubes. The automotive industry in particular has shown no signs of actually understanding what got it into the situation it's in now, and probably will never acknowledge that the huge amounts of money spent on a demonstrably ineffective supplier management effort is a large part of the cause.

Lest I be excoriated for "bashing," I acknowledge that many companies have gotten better by concentrating on control of their processes, and that in many cases that might not have happened had it not been for the requirement for them to get certified. Nonetheless, there are far too many companies that are certified that shouldn't be, and the numbers of them are too great to not think that the CBs--all of them--aren't part of the cause.

 

[AndyN]

Jim, your normally cogent argument has truly amazed and somewhat concerned me!

You appear to be blaming the demise of NA manufacturing and, in particular, the auto industry - on ISO certification! Were they pinning their hopes of survival on being ISO 9000 certified? Because of the extra cost, perhaps of maintaining a certified qms?

Unfortunately, I don't have time to point out all of the places I believe you've mixed your message - I'm headed to the airport - but I will say this;

I see no connection between the previous version of ISO 9000 (in particular BS), its benefits (perceived, false or otherwise) or a rush to trade in Europe compared to what happens today. Blaming the kids for the sins of the parents isn't appropriate, is it?

In my experience only a handful of companies traded in Europe - in fact, 20 years ago, I remember very few USA made products ever being for sale in Europe! Plus, you'll remember that the pre 2000 version of the standard had almost nothing which indicated an objectively effective system was a requirement! You can't reasonably lay the blame for the content of the previous versions of the ISO standard, which wasn't written with certification in mind, at the door of any CB.

Sorry, Jim, I think you've got it wrong this time........

 

[Jim Wynne]

Jim, your normally cogent argument has truly amazed and somewhat concerned me!

You appear to be blaming the demise of NA manufacturing and, in particular, the auto industry - on ISO certification! Were they pinning their hopes of survival on being ISO 9000 certified? Because of the extra cost, perhaps of maintaining a certified qms?

Unfortunately, I don't have time to point out all of the places I believe you've mixed your message - I'm headed to the airport - but I will say this;

I see no connection between the previous version of ISO 9000 (in particular BS), its benefits (perceived, false or otherwise) or a rush to trade in Europe compared to what happens today. Blaming the kids for the sins of the parents isn't appropriate, is it?

In my experience only a handful of companies traded in Europe - in fact, 20 years ago, I remember very few USA made products ever being for sale in Europe! Plus, you'll remember that the pre 2000 version of the standard had almost nothing which indicated an objectively effective system was a requirement! You can't reasonably lay the blame for the content of the previous versions of the ISO standard, which wasn't written with certification in mind, at the door of any CB.

Sorry, Jim, I think you've got it wrong this time........

Why not try responding to what I actually wrote, and not a strawman version of it?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Nonetheless, there are far too many companies that are certified that shouldn't be, and the numbers of them are too great to not think that the CBs--all of them--aren't part of the cause.

I agree with this assessment. There are many culprits for substandard systems, around the World, attaining and maintaining certification. CB's would be foolish if they tried to deflect the part of the blame we must bear.

Still, I contend, if 30 years and 1 million certified systems later, the process did not deliver some level of noticeable improvement, this should be deemed the pyramid scheme of the ages.

but when the bar is set so low that even companies with no legs can jump over it with relative ease no one should be surprised that certification isn't the badge of honor everyone thought it would be.

That is what I refer to the "trivialization" of the certification process. Until we solve the lack of association between system performance and certification, it will be hard to reconcile all stakeholders expectations of what a certificate should mean.

 

[Obstacle3]

There's one vital and critically important point that is missing from this discussion. I too have heard the comments that were made about documentation and records and then audits, review etc. (You can tell your CB isn't giving much thought to 'value added audits' if it came from them).

That key point is 'effectiveness'! You mention that "there isn't quality in some of our processes" which I'm sure you have a completely objective view of, based on the performance data from those processes.......

So, since this data will be pretty obvious - it must be available for management review etc., - then only a completely incompetent auditor would miss it during the audit, especially since the org. is only meeting minimum requirements! CB's almost never recruit morons (but then I only work in Europe/USA).

You say that you think the perceived value of certification is lost............but do you have any data? If you have anything more than a bad feeling about it, then it should come to light - maybe not to the extent you would wish, since the audit is a sample, the auditor doesn't know your management culture etc. You may pass the audit in the next few days, but can it be sustained with (apparently) poor processes? I doubt it! If you are correct in your assertions, then there's another aphorism that comes to mind;

"Every dog has his day"........

Okay heres the deal.

I have the audit end of this week.

1 of our outputs OUR PRIMARY OUTPUT is not actually tracked and measured by management. They have no idea what % go out on time, what % are error free etc.

I will be willing to bet 50,000,0000,000,000 Zimbawbean "dollars" that the auditor doesn't identify this

 

[Jim Wynne]

Okay heres the deal.

I have the audit end of this week.

1 of our outputs OUR PRIMARY OUTPUT is not actually tracked and measured by management. They have no idea what % go out on time, what % are error free etc.

I will be willing to bet 50,000,0000,000,000 Zimbawbean "dollars" that the auditor doesn't identify this

That's "Zimbabwean," but I do like the sound of your spelling, especially if it's pronounced Zim-baw-bean.

 

[Obstacle3]

That's "Zimbabwean," but I do like the sound of your spelling, especially if it's pronounced Zim-baw-bean.

Apologies, I am not spell checking posts...too busy getting paperwork together to bluff the audit!