Rob Nix said:
I believe there are two reasons for the 100% first time registration results:
1) The whole system is not the altruistic effort to better the quality of companies across the globe. It is a money making venture on the part of registrars, auditors, consultants and trainers. You pay for a certificate. Period.
2) The schedules for registered auditors are tight (especially this year with ISO9K2K), so there are no time slots left for follow up audits for companies failing the first time. They must pass the first time as there is no time left to come back.
I don't know that number 2 is so true.
I can say, sadly, that I agree with #1. I was at a client facility recently and the fellow I was meeting with and I were talking about how he found the forums and that when he first saw some 'opinions' on what's happening - that many 'undeserving' companies are registered, that someone was 'smoking some of that funny stuff'. Then, in a new position he ended up going to some suppliers and found several which he felt didn't deserve their certificate.
This occurs to some degree because ISO requirements have evolved to be more and more subjective and thus more and more open to interpretation. I have long pointed out this aspect of ISO.
The current ISO champions cite the 2000 revision as a leap forward because it now includes a 'requirement' for continuous improvement. I say poppy cock. This new focus, along with the 'process model' smokescreen, only increases the subjectiveness of complying with the standard.
IMO the current value of ISO 9001 registration is now questionable. 'Good' companies will continue to do 'good' things and 'bad' companies will continue to operate in the same way as they have in the past. The reality is a standard isn't going to change many 'bad personality' companies.
The question is what do we, and what should we, expect from ISO 9001:2000? I'll address this in another thread.