ISO 9001 Certification - Successful First Registration Audit? (Poll)

[db]

I think that the high first audit certification shown in the Cove poll is because the folks that inhabit this forum are all above average!

OK, now I've been nice to someone today, I can go back to being myself! lol

I would be disallusioned if most of the responses were more than one day. Think of your initial driving test. You studied, practiced driving and studied some more before taking the test. I would expect that the vast majority of test takers would make it on the first attempt. The same holds true here, in fact, I would say that there is a much higher chance of passing the audit on the first attempt. It is not because the registrars are too lax (although some are), but rather because the companies prepared themselves for it. And if the companies paid for the pre-assessment, then there should be no way that they should fail the registration audit.

 

[M Greenaway]

Hey, our auditor asked ME what I wanted him to write us up on, and how strong to make it, observation, minor, major, or just an off the record !!!

He then asked me what ISO9001:2000 clauses to pin them on !!!!!!!

Dont know if he was useless, intimidated, or just plain didnt give a sh1t - or maybe even he realises what a farce he is engaged in.

 

[Marc]

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.

 

[JRKH]

Catch 22

I agree with Marc about how subjective the new standard is, but the problem with a standard this broad is trying to create something useful without becoming restrictive.
Years ago, when I first started hering about the ISO standards, the statement was that they tell you what needs done but not how to do them. You choose what is right for your system. I believe this was and is an attempt to not stifle creativity in the way a company does business.
Unfortunately it also leads to a lot of interpretation and to some of the abuses that others have pointed out over the years.
The bottom line is that companies want correct products, on time, and at a good price. And we don't care much how the other fellow accomplishes it.
I don't think there is any real way out of this cunundrum. It really is a catch 22.
I will say that my own experience (and I bet others) is that ISO 3rd party registration requirements have lit fires under a few folks to get changes made for the better. Changes that would never have occured without the outside influence.

Our Audit is on Wednesday and Thursday. I'll try not to mess up the poll

James

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Our Audit is on Wednesday and Thursday. I'll try not to mess up the poll

James

Good luck James.

/Claes

 

[mshell]

Good Luck James.

 

[Christi Day]

Just wondering, who is your registrar.

Normally, I would be a little hesitant to say who our registrar is, especially since my user name is my actual name, but I am completely disatisfied with their service and doubt their auditors (at least the ones they sent us) subscribe to a site for furthering their knowledge in quality issues. We switched to UL from LRQA back in January under my protest and now we all, but especially me, have to pay the price.

As far as us writing ourselves into corners and these findings being legitimate, this could not be further from the truth (I'm not being defensive, just stating fact). For instance, the ruler does not have to be calibrated since it is not used to make quality-critical measurements. Everyone has been beaten over the head around here to know which measurements must be taken with a calibrated measuring instrument and a random sampling of personnel would have revealed that. Additionally, our procedures state this. There was no interest in the procedure or in determining consistancy in personnel's understanding of practice. The auditor's response to my attempts to discuss was "Everything must be calibrated or thrown out. This is UL. This is what's required. Get used to it and do it." So much for a friendly discussion of differing opinions. On the flip side, I was told that I could relax my calibration schedule until my little heart's content. So, I'm thinking of relaxing to the 10 year plan.

 

[RoxaneB]

Normally, I would be a little hesitant to say who our registrar is, especially since my user name is my actual name, but I am completely disatisfied with their service and doubt their auditors (at least the ones they sent us) subscribe to a site for furthering their knowledge in quality issues. We switched to UL from LRQA back in January under my protest and now we all, but especially me, have to pay the price.

As far as us writing ourselves into corners and these findings being legitimate, this could not be further from the truth (I'm not being defensive, just stating fact). For instance, the ruler does not have to be calibrated since it is not used to make quality-critical measurements. Everyone has been beaten over the head around here to know which measurements must be taken with a calibrated measuring instrument and a random sampling of personnel would have revealed that. Additionally, our procedures state this. There was no interest in the procedure or in determining consistancy in personnel's understanding of practice. The auditor's response to my attempts to discuss was "Everything must be calibrated or thrown out. This is UL. This is what's required. Get used to it and do it." So much for a friendly discussion of differing opinions. On the flip side, I was told that I could relax my calibration schedule until my little heart's content. So, I'm thinking of relaxing to the 10 year plan.

Sorry to hear that your experience with UL was not the best. Mine was the exact opposite. Just proves that it's a shame we can't calibrate our External Auditors!

You do have the option to refuse a finding, I believe. Discuss with your Registar. Your Auditor is but one person and if you feel that you have strong enough case in an area you feel is worth fighting for, I'd suggest that route.

 

[Cari Spears]

...The auditor's response to my attempts to discuss was "Everything must be calibrated or thrown out. This is UL. This is what's required. Get used to it and do it."...

Baaaloney!!! Everything is wrong with that statement - and I wonder how you calibrate a ruler. Once it is etched or stamped, that's that. You can purchase a certified scale, traceable to NIST and compare newly purchased rulers to it, then after that you can only verify the condition visually. But, to what end?... will it keep you from manufacturing product to spec?...

Metrology 101 - If you take three or four different brands of 6" scales and compared, none of them will be the same. Scales, rulers, tape measures - not precision instruments!! The resolution of the instrument used to verify product is based on your tolerances.

I fought this write up myself in the past, for us it would have meant hundreds of additional gages in our calibration system. I always say "Pick and choose your battles", I chose to not concur and flat out refused to add steel rules because of the ridiculous amount of time and energy without added value. Perhaps your situation is just a couple of rulers and not that big of a deal.

This is JMO, but based on the auditor statement above, the other write ups you posted, and what Roxanne likes about UL, I'd contact someone - your technical contact or account manager and discuss this auditor and his/her findings with them.

 

[RoxaneB]

Baaaloney!!! Everything is wrong with that statement - and I wonder how you calibrate a ruler. Once it is etched or stamped, that's that. You can purchase a certified scale, traceable to NIST and compare newly purchased rulers to it, then after that you can only verify the condition visually. But, to what end?... will it keep you from manufacturing product to spec?...

Metrology 101 - If you take three or four different brands of 6" scales and compared, none of them will be the same. Scales, rulers, tape measures - not precision instruments!! The resolution of the instrument used to verify product is based on your tolerances.

Ahhh...I see you've had a discussion similar to me, Cari!...about the differences bewteen calibration, verification, and inspection of equipment! Some people just don't get it!

My personal favourites come from the same QC Tech I worked with in a former job. When I asked him how he ensured that rules used in Production were acceptable for use, he said that he grabbed another rule and made sure that the "lines lined up."

When asked how he used a rule measuring to 1/8" for measurements requiring 1/16", he said that he grabbed another rule and eyeballed the halfway mark.