ISO 9001 Registration Ineffective - No effect on sales, profitability, performance

[JRaghavendran]

Intent, Implement, Effective

IMHO,There are basically three portions of the whole gamut of QMS development and implementation.
Intent:
It is the top management’s intent as reflected directly in the policy and pilfered through in other tiers of system development. This comes from just the written portion of the system. Intention expressed formally and put on paper.

Implementation:
This can address the Efficiency part of the system. Internal audit is a good performance indicator. Some of the metrics of performence go hand in hand with this.

Effectiveness:
Cost of quality, internal audits and customer satisfaction levels are indicators of Effectiveness. This should be consistant with metrics of performence if done correctly. If not we need to calibrate.

Basically, the top and operations management have the ability to use the QMS to achieve stack holder value and differentiation that they are aiming at. Third party registrar is just a tool - A costly tool some times.

 

[Tammy N]

Nadcap/pri

Anyone here deal with NADCAP or PRI?

 

[al40]

Anyone here deal with NADCAP or PRI?

I've work with it in the Aerospace industry.

What do you need?

 

[Tammy N]

I have been dealing with NADCAP for several years now and I see the same issue with them as with ISO registrars. I was just wondering if anyone else had.

 

[Gerry Quinn]

Just to add my 2 cents.

I am in supplier quality for a finished medical device manufacturer.

I don't require registration for any of my suppliers. Primarily because I have seen too many registered suppliers who have not established nor implemeted the standards properly.

I have had suppliers directly contradict their stated policies in their manual during audits. When I confront them with the conflict with their written policy they tell me that " we don't know what it says in the manual, but here's how it really is." Now if I can find this during my audit, why can't the 'so called' registrar?

So I do my own evaluations, following the standard and I assess for myself if the supplier has what I need for my business.

I do want the suppliers to follow the standard, it makes it easier for me, but it's not necessary for them to do so.

I am convinced like others here that the good companys adopt and follow the system. The bad ones just want the cert.

As long as the registration process is a business it will never work. We need one registration body like the ASME is for the NRC. When the registrar is the only game in town, you have to meet the standard or you're out of the game. Now the registrar doesn't have to worry about you cancelling his contract; you can't he's it.( of course we would need price controls, etc.)

 

[AllanJ]

Just to add my 2 cents.

I am in supplier quality for a finished medical device manufacturer.

I don't require registration for any of my suppliers. Primarily because I have seen too many registered suppliers who have not established nor implemeted the standards properly.

I have had suppliers directly contradict their stated policies in their manual during audits. When I confront them with the conflict with their written policy they tell me that " we don't know what it says in the manual, but here's how it really is." Now if I can find this during my audit, why can't the 'so called' registrar?

So I do my own evaluations, following the standard and I assess for myself if the supplier has what I need for my business.

I do want the suppliers to follow the standard, it makes it easier for me, but it's not necessary for them to do so.

I am convinced like others here that the good companys adopt and follow the system. The bad ones just want the cert.

As long as the registration process is a business it will never work. We need one registration body like the ASME is for the NRC. When the registrar is the only game in town, you have to meet the standard or you're out of the game. Now the registrar doesn't have to worry about you cancelling his contract; you can't he's it.( of course we would need price controls, etc.)

It seems to me you are getting close to the kind of relationship I discuss in the Reading Room in my article about "Internal auditing and pastures new".

It is clear like countless others you have little faith in registrar service and efficay of their assessments/ certifications. What matters is what you as the customer wants/ needs and will accept in the contractual relationship with your supplier(s). I would also suspect in your particular industry (medical) your company could not risk reliance on any ISO 9K or similar certificate as a guarantee of supplier diligence in its Q Prog. Forget the registrars - take care of business without reference to them or their certs.

I am sure there are many Covers who would like to know the identity of the particular registrar you allude to. If you do not wish to post the name publicly, I would and will respect the confidence of the name if sent to me in a PM from the Cove.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

From Quality Magazine: More at Quality Magazine.

Interesting, but my own experience as a third party CB auditor (with about 800 audits under my belt), is that most of my clients experience significant improvement in performance, in most all internal metrics, scrap, efficiency, yield, throughput, OEE, downtime, etc. But, it takes a true commitment to learning and applying the process, and it takes an audit team which continues to drive the improvements. Just implementing it alone doesn't get it.