ISO 9001 certification (registration) requirements - No commercial product or service

[Paul Simpson]

Re: Back on track?

Paul, exclusions can only be considered as long as they do not affect the organization's ability or responsibility, to provide product that meets customer and applicable regulatory requirements. I don't see how any organization can exclude 7.2 or 7.5. For them to exclude 7.2 it would mean they do not have customers. If you exclude 7.5, you don't have a product. Either way, in both instances, they would not have a QMS.

OK, Sidney. I admit the post was a little tongue in cheek (we really must get an emoticon that shows that. ).

There is a serious point though. If they don't have any customers (at this stage) can you exclude the clause, similarly if they don't make anything, can you exclude the clause? It doesn't affect their ability to satisfy customer requirements because, at this stage, there are none!

Bear in mind the company want to extend their system to cover these areas when they become appropriate.

I believe they are meeting all the principles of quality assurance (as they apply to them at the time) and are worthy of assessment and (potentially) certification.

IMHO there are too many companies out there who have certificates that don't deserve them because they are complying with the letter of the law but not the spirit.

The examples we are discussing are of companies who embrace the spirit of the standard but (through no fault of their own) cannot meet the letter of the requirements (that some bureaucrats think define certification).

Saturday morning rant over - I can get on with my weekend!

 

[Paul Simpson]

Re: In the 'Old Days'... At least 3 months of records (preferably 6)

I can't see how anyone could have possibly been offended, but perhaps it might be best to go back to the analogy in my original response in this post--a building inspector issuing an occupancy permit before the building is constructed.

OK. I'm presuming you have the sames systems in the US. Over here you can get planning permission that looks at what you want to do and issues a permit to go ahead and build or extend your house - based on what you intend to use in the way of materials and standards of construction. That is probably more akin to the certification we are talking about here.

Or another construction example. Our Wembley stadium has just been completed (late and over budget but that is the subject of another "quality" thread). The infrastructure and systems are in place but before they can officially open the doors they have to get a general safety certificate to show that it can be used.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Back on track?

There is a serious point though. If they don't have any customers (at this stage) can you exclude the clause, similarly if they don't make anything, can you exclude the clause? It doesn't affect their ability to satisfy customer requirements because, at this stage, there are none!

You are painfully aware of the chart from ISO 9001:2000

If there are no customers providing input and feedback, the model can not be fulfilled, thus no meaningful implementation nor certification can be achieved.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Re: Back on track?

You are painfully aware of the chart from ISO 9001:2000

It is never painful, Sidney - you know that!

If there are no customers providing input and feedback, the model can not be fulfilled, thus no meaningful implementation nor certification can be achieved.

I never said it was perfect!

There is still a point to debate about some sort of recognition for a system that is planned and should work, subject to a range of caveats to prevent misuse of their "certification."

Effectively it is a positive report after stage 2 of a 3 stage audit. There is evidence for a range of processes (including design and all the "planning activities"), processes are in place for some of the other product realization activities. So at the end of stage 2 this effort can be recognized. With certification hoefully confiremed after stage 3 when evidence of implementation is available.

I can't remember what form the recognition took at the time (whether it was a certificate or a positive audit report).

So for those reasons with careful thought and control I would be prepared to offer some sort of recognition to a system like the two we are discussing. OK, Sidney, I might stop short of an ISO 9001 certificate - certainly an accredited one!

Just going back to the model for a second does that mean all ISO 9001 registered companies should be able to show evidence of management commitment?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Back on track?

Just going back to the model for a second does that mean all ISO 9001 registered companies should be able to show evidence of management commitment?

Management is always committed to:

• improve their bonuses and compensation packages
• finding ways to exploit the workforce in a (as much as possible)legal way
• reduce their responsibilities
• reduce their workload
• finding scape goats whenever something goes wrong...
• etc...

 

[JaneB]

Re: ISO 9001 certification (registration) requirements - No commercial product or ser

I remember in a previous life a large certification body registering a company that hadn't operated at the time of their assessment. The reason for them needing certification was it was a condition in an Invitation to Tender that all short listed companies had to be ISO certified. The company in question was a joint venture set up to go into this type of business.

A case of Catch 22.

There were some very specific caveats in their contract.

• The company could only advertise their ISO certification in the particular ITT
• They had to have a first visit soon after they started work on the particular contract
• The customer was fully aware of the arrangements

On this basis they were assessed as compliant and subesquently confirmed this in follow up visits.

On this type of basis I would be happy to assess this type of company.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Yes, it's definitely somewhat outside the norm. But given those very specific caveats - including the customer being fully aware of the arrangements -- this sounds like a quite reasonable response to a unique situation and customer need.

I think it unreasonable to level 'contract grabbing' accusations on that basis. I'd see it as a reasonable, customer focussed and sensible response to a unique situation.

And presumably their customer wanted this supplier, as they chose them...

 

[RoxaneB]

Re: Back on track?

If there are no customers providing input and feedback, the model can not be fulfilled, thus no meaningful implementation nor certification can be achieved.

My site's been down that exact path. When transitioning over to ISO 9001:2000, we reviewed the Clause 7 exclusion options and realized "Hey! Sales in Clause 7 and Sales is not based on our site...we can exclude!"

Our Registrar said no. They were unwilling to accept Sales as a "key supplier' - providing us with a service of our Customers requirements - mainly because Sales also generates our Production Schedule.

So our cert applies to our site address and our two Sales locations located off-site.

Some Registrars are willing to accept Sales as a supplier - according to a few of our other ISO 9001 registered sites and others are willing to accept Sales is part of the process but not audit them as they're covered under the scope of my site's certificate (i.e., subject to annual internal audits and regular external audits).

 

[JaneB]

Re: Back on track?

Management is always committed to:

• improve their bonuses and compensation packages
• finding ways to exploit the workforce in a (as much as possible)legal way
• reduce their responsibilities
• reduce their workload
• finding scape goats whenever something goes wrong...
• etc...

While this is off-topic, I do think that this kind of blanket 'management bashing' is about as useful as the sort of 'quality managers are always idiots' and 'all certifiers are hopeless and out for the $$ only' type of statement. What's next? Every poor person is lazy? Women are always weak and cry? etc. etc.

Very black and white, not supported by any data, and not true.

Yes, there are some managers like that. There are, like any other field, good bad and indifferent ones.

But I've had the pleasure and privilege of meeting many who aren't, and who are (like the rest of us) human beings trying to do the best job they are capable of, within the constraints that apply.

If you really hold that as a complete truth, then why bother to persist in the profession, as nothing would ever change.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Back on track?

If you really hold that as a complete truth, then why bother to persist in the profession, as nothing would ever change.

Thanks for straightening me up and whipping my cynical view of management. I must decide if the fight is hopeless and take action accordingly. In the meantime, I would like to keep contributing to the Cove.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: Back on track?

While this is off-topic, I do think that this kind of blanket 'management bashing' is about as useful as the sort of 'quality managers are always idiots' and 'all certifiers are hopeless and out for the $$ only' type of statement. What's next? Every poor person is lazy? Women are always weak and cry? etc. etc.

While I agree that we always have to be careful about stereotypes, and maybe things are different where you are, but Deming once said that he would like to be remembered as someone who spent his life trying to keep American manufacturing from committing suicide. He was also well known for his contention that "managers get paid to make things worse." It's no secret that American business management suffers greatly from a lack of leadership skills. I think Sidney was calling a spade a spade.

Very black and white, not supported by any data, and not true.

Au contraire, there's lots of data. If you just use the American automotive industry as an example (and perhaps a gross one, but not very gross), bad management has pounded great companies into near-oblivion. We have access to the best technology, highly skilled people, and all the necessary resources, yet the industry is out on the ledge, ready to jump. If you can find a root cause that doesn't lead back to poor leadership and bad management in general, I love to hear about it.

Yes, there are some managers like that. There are, like any other field, good bad and indifferent ones.

"There's good and bad in everything" is true, but it isn't particularly useful information. Bad managers have gained ascendancy, and they'll take all the good ones with them over the ledge if we all turn our heads in denial. It's just not helpful to don rose-colored glasses and sing "Everything is Beautiful" when everything is going down the toilet.

But I've had the pleasure and privilege of meeting many who aren't, and who are (like the rest of us) human beings trying to do the best job they are capable of, within the constraints that apply.

If you really hold that as a complete truth, then why bother to persist in the profession, as nothing would ever change.

Well, some of us need to eat, and some of us believe that if we do enough to expose the folly of bad management, things will get better. We can't change anything with platitudes and with our heads in the sand, though.