ISO 9001 - Gigantic waste or Beneficial? Why does ISO 9001 exist? Got data/facts?

[qualitytrec]

wow deja vu
mark

 

[jcbodie]

jcbodie,
But think about it to truly be a third party should you not be hired by the second party. I think the biggest issue with the registration being a "joke" for many companies is that they choose the registering company to audit them. the same company that is being audited is footing the bill. I do not see how an audit can be truly objective in this situation. It is a conflict of interest IMO for you to "objectively" audit the people who keep your lights on. Mark

I actually have given more thought to this and have identified another option, although not perfect.

DISCLAIMER: I WOULD BE THE FIRST PERSON TO SAY WE DO NOT NEED ANY MORE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN OUR LIVES

Having noted the above DISCLAIMER, maybe one solution is that the Registrar function could be performed by one govt. entity, much like the EPA or USDA. This would completely remove the profit motive (and any undercutting of price and audit days), as we all know that government is not about making a profit or operating efficiently.

Everyone interested in registration (by their own choice and not dictated by an industry customer) would only have one choice: the govt. dept. , which would also remove the bias you mentioned, Mark, about who chooses the Registrar. One manday price for everyone, no matter if you were Joe Blow's Garage Repair (emp: 1) or Big Bad Company (emp: 200,000). If a potential registrant didn't like what the govt. entity wanted to do or charge, and tried to threaten them by taking their 120 site business to someone else, tough toenails: there would be no opportunity to play one Registrar off on another, relating to adequate time for audit, price, etc. and I believe the "paper mill" aspect would be reduced significantly, since the govt. wouldn't care if you registered or not. Similarly, since Auditors would be govt. employees (presumably protected to a greater degree than in the private sector), the Auditors could be more focused on reporting audit result/NC's "fair and true" and not be influenced by customer threat of walking out the door to another Registrar. (This power might go to the Auditor's head though---Oh wait, that's wrong, because there is never corruption in govt. My mistake.)

I realize this solution would require a giant leap of faith, as to the efficiency of the operation (would they be properly staffed, how long would the wait be for registration, how long to process my certificate, would they lose my files, etc.). It could also create a whole other set of problems (i.e. if Auditors are govt. employees, would they be protected as civil servants, making it much harder to ever get rid of the bad ones; merit raises for excellent Auditor performance would be replaced by the Grade/Level system of compensation in Govt----oh, I forgot, private sector doesn't give merit raises anymore either).

Just a thought, albeit an imperfect one (see DISCLAIMER above). No easy answer.

 

[Carl Keller]

jcbodie,

I do not know you but sense that you maybe a very focused, attentive auditor, however:

I have worked with at least 7 different registrar auditors over the past 10 years. Most of them were fairly intelligent, and very nice to work with. I am still going to find fault with the registrar side of things.

The RAB and the registrars have twisted the ISO registration scheme into a complete scam. They have been in the back pocket of the ASQ since the inception and everyone has their hand out. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with making a profit, but the RAB is well aware the "paper mill" registrars exist and they know that the vast majority of registrars fall into that category. When companies are registered, they don't say "come in for 8 hours and register me" the REGISTRAR dictates the length of the audit.

The evidence suggests that many, if not most registrar auditors, come in, look over some documentation, audit a few hours, interpret as they see fit (inconsistently amongst auditors and registrars I might add) and give the certificate to the company.

There is a complete lack of auditor consistency, but it does not matter because everyone passes, nobody loses registration due to an audit and NOBODY keeps track of the numbers.

The finger points at the registrars for a reason.

Carl-

 

[jcbodie]

jcbodie,

I am still going to find fault with the registrar side of things.

but the RAB is well aware the "paper mill" registrars exist and they know that the vast majority of registrars fall into that category. When companies are registered, they don't say "come in for 8 hours and register me" the REGISTRAR dictates the length of the audit.

The evidence suggests that many, if not most registrar auditors, come in, look over some documentation, audit a few hours, interpret as they see fit (inconsistently amongst auditors and registrars I might add) and give the certificate to the company.

There is a complete lack of auditor consistency, but it does not matter because everyone passes, nobody loses registration due to an audit and NOBODY keeps track of the numbers.

The finger points at the registrars for a reason.

Carl-

Carl

I don't disagree with what you have outlined as "your experience", although working with "7 different Registrars" does not necessarily, in my mind, support that "evidence suggests that many, if not most registrar auditors" are the problem (hardly, a statistically sound sample size). AND, I don't disagree that their are problems with Registrars---I have ALWAYS maintained throughout my responses here that both Registrars and Auditors are PART of the issue. My comments were that Registerered AND potential Registered Sites ALSO contribute to this "paper mill"/lack of substance ISO argument. (Maybe not most of the problem, but certainly part of it. ) We ALL need to look into the mirror. :truce:

Additionally, reputable Registrars (like mine) actually don't "dictate the length of the audit" as much as they are SUPPOSE to be following an established audit length matrix, which is set by a non-Registrar Technical committee (the number and name escapes me at the moment). Again, there are unscrupulous Registrars out there that "shave" time to get the business. BUT, I know of cases where there are dishonest clients, as well. Case in Point: I met an ISO Rep on a plane, who knew I was an auditor for a different Registrar. He relayed to me that the Registrar quoted a 4 day Audit (which from his description of the operation, sounded correct to me, per the matrix). The auditor (who was local) did not follow-up on any of his interface checks, during the course of the audit (as a good auditor does) and announced to the ISO Rep at the close of day THREE that he had seen enough and the audit was over!!! (This Auditor works for a very well know Registrar). What do you think the ISO Rep did? He told me not only did he NOT report the Auditor to the Registrar, as not completing the 4th day (as mandated by the matrix), but when the Registrar bill came for "4 days", the ISO Rep PAID IT! and did not alert the Registrar to what happened and the ISO Rep gave the Auditor a glowing review and requested him back for all future visits!! The site got their "paper" and that's all the ISO Rep cared about; the ISO Rep admitted this to me!!!! While the Auditor certainly was wrong (and gives good Auditors and ISO a bad name), I'm not sure the Registrar is to blame, in this case. The Registrar quoted the correct time and has to honor what the Auditor invoices them for (since the Auditor was local, he had no expenses that might have been caught by the Registrar, i.e. why does your plane ticket show you're leaving at the end of the 3rd and not the 4th day?) The ISO Rep had an obligation to report this Auditor to the Registrar, but was more concerned about "passing" and having an Auditor that "rubber stamped" things, for future visits. In this case, since I'm assuming the Registrar had no knowledge of what happened, then RAB couldn't follow-up either.

Relative to your comments on RAB, I have no experience with them. The Registrar I work for demands IRCA registration for their Auditors (this is the International body, the difference being RAB Auditors only have jurisdiction within the US, while IRCA Auditors can go anywhere in the world to work). And IRCA is pretty **** strict. So maybe the RAB problem is local to the US and unfortunately, giving everyone a bad name.

Again, my point is none of us are perfect (Registrar, Auditor, Client, Accreditation Board) and to clean up one or two areas (even if they are the major problems), will not completely solve the issue. I do agree that if something isn't done, the value of ISO will continue to be questioned and conscientious Registrars, Auditors and Clients will continue to suffer.

 

[Carl Keller]

jcbodie,

I can't disagree with what you are saying. Customers don't even hide it anymore, it is a joke.

While your auditing skills and the ethics of the Registrar you work for may well be above the norm, the system you are required to work with has deteriorated to a point that cannot appreciate your value.

I will add this, based on my experiences (legitimate sample size or not) and the experiences recounted on this site, the ASQ forum and those experienced by my colleagues, the "Interpretation", lack of standardization in auditing practice and, yes the unscrupulous practices of SOME (I say many) Registrars and Clients alike, ISO Registration has become a disgrace.

It is nothing more than the cost of doing business in most cases and the perception (rightly so IMO) is that everyone who pays the bills passes.

It is a gigantic waste.

Carl-

 

[AllanJ]

Carl

Again, my point is none of us are perfect (Registrar, Auditor, Client, Accreditation Board) and to clean up one or two areas (even if they are the major problems), will not completely solve the issue. I do agree that if something isn't done, the value of ISO will continue to be questioned and conscientious Registrars, Auditors and Clients will continue to suffer.

All good sentiments. But, as you have noted on my recent posting on the thread, concerning whether or not "3rd party" auditors ought to make recommendations, I (among others) was already concerned about the conduct of the registrar assessments way back in 1987 when writing the 2nd edition of "Management Audits" and I continued raising the matter in appropriate forums. As we now approach 2005 - 18 years later, is it unreasonable to think this registration industry, its accreditation boards and so forth have been given a very reasonable amount of time to clean up the act? Is it not well overdue that "something is done"? And since this whole debate about the value of ISO 9K etc has been rumbling on for well over a decade, without resolution, has not the matter exceeded the point indecency for the quality profession?

Back in 1991, at the Cranfield meeting (referred to in that other thread) when I dared to question the level of conduct of registrars et al, I was scorned by them and told my conclusions could not be right because the shere number of registrations was increasing (translation: the market place like the service and/ or the way the service was conducted). Now, as the number of registrations fall in countries whose market place has almost 18 years of ISO 9K experience, perhaps their excoriating remarks made to me need to be reversed?

As I understand it, there are about 100 or so registrars in the USA. Therefore if our friend has enjoyed poor experienced at the hands of 7 of them, that may not seem to be statistically significant, but it is a large enough number to raise a reasonable person's eyebrows. If, of course, he had only ever had experience of 7 reagistrars and every one of them was viewed as deficient in service, that would be highly significant for him as it would represent a 100% failure rate of registrars.

There is no smoke without fire.

 

[Ilias]

Sorry I have not replied to a couple of the questions regarding ISO numbers, which I seem to be fascinated with. Some of the answers have arleady been answered by others anyway. In the past few days I have been trying to find out some background to these numbers, and this is what I have found.

The ISO numbers are dependant on certification companies in each country submitting their figures in to ISO every year. As this is a voluntary process some of the data has to be seen as not accurate. This is especially true of withdrawn certificates, as certification companies are reluctant to submit this data as it can be seen as 'embarassing' information on their performance. However, the overall numbers of ISO registrations can be taken as indicating a trend.

To answer a question on the numbers, they represent total registrations that certification companies have on their books.

To answer another question regarding saturation; ISO 9000 has been designed to cover many operating organisations, including service. It can also be used in SMEs. So for saturation then the base of ISO certificates should represent a substantial % of businesses with greater than 50 people. In reality this is not the case.

The increase in foreign registrations appears to be due to the global bodies like the EU, UNIDO, and WTO. They are pushing ISO 9000 as a method where customers can distinguish supplier quality. That seems to be why China, Romania and others are increasing at a crazy rate - market coercion. Foreign businesses are not in a good position to evaluate ISO 9000 as it is new to them. Some national governments are providing funding for certification, and provide consultants, training, etc. In some cases some industries have targets to implement ISO 9000 in a % of total companies.


Peter Fraser, I read your post, but I am not sure as to the argument that UKAS was expecting a reduction in ISO 9000 certificates. It seems like to me that they were hedging their bets and predicting a reduction.

Greg B, from what Carl Keller found was that the US figures are only higher if the 1994 and 2000 versions are taken together. I must say the marked difference in figures is puzzling, and seems to point to a discrepancy so that the true figure may be lower. So I would not imagine the Auto or Automotive industries have anything to do with an increase. Especially with TS 16949 and others actually decreasing the ISO 9000 figures.

John Seddon has released a press release on the latest ISO figures. As the release includes some graphs I cannot paste it here, ask for the press release at this email address if anyone is interested
[email protected]
And John's battle against ISO 9000 http://www.lean-service.com/3.asp

Carl Keller, I have to say I agree, it may be up to us to instigate and demand change but at a greater level. It seems that ISO as an organisation is not up to looking at the standard, the market place, the registrars, and the clients from the viewpoint that we have. I would also say that we need a radical rethink and reassessment of what happens in the future? One thing that will fail is if we do nothing. And I don't just suggest some campaign to keep ISO 9000, but what does industry need and what can we provide?

Ilias

 

[WALLACE]

Any more in-put to this thread??

This thread fascinated me.
Are there any further respectful contributors willing to state their views??
The tone of this thread was indeed negative yet, fruitful.
Wallace.

 

[Paul Simpson]

IQA - The Great Debate

Continuing the theme of attacking ISO 9000 John Seddon recently had an article published in the IQA magazine - Quality World. This article is available on the web to IQA members only.

https://www.iqasecure.co.uk/publication/qw_nov04_02.asp

The main points in the article are not new and are repeated at the Vanguard site:

http://www.lean-service.com/6-quality.asp

Attached to the site is an open letter to the new MD of BSI about the standard. I have attached it here.



For my sins I sent a reply through to IQA which was posted in their next edition. Once people have had a chance to see what John Seddon thinks I will post my reply. Any feedback gratefully received.
__________________
Rgds, Paul Simpson

Looking for Solutions

 

[WALLACE]

Thanks for the interesting attachment Paul.
Reformation is good: Painful but good at the end of the day.

What do you believe may be the implications for the ISO standards for fast growing productive countries such as China in this century?
It seems to me that, there are more and more, genuine and constructive interest in the ISO standards coming from that part of the world.
Taking this reality into consideration, do you believe China may be in a position to pro-actively involved in the "Reformation" process?

Regardless of Mr. Seddon's position and approach to the ISO standards, I must admit that the ISO standards have become engrained into modern business processes in such a way that, they are now institutionalized practices (For the most part) in global business.
I don't exactly have a love affair with the ISO standards yet it's clear, there is at this time, no viable alternative to the ISO global standard.
Wallace.