ISO/TS 16949 and/or ISO 14001 Self-Certification

[Sidney Vianna]

This has been discussed many times before. Here's a similar thread that you might find interesting: Self Certification & Self Issued Certificate? ISO 14001

It was also discussed in the Self assessment / Self declaration of ISO 14001 thread. In post # 15 of that thread I brought up people's attention to ISO 17050:2004 Conformity assessment - Supplier's declaration of conformity, Parts 1 & 2. Such standard would provide for enhanced credibility in self-attestations of conformance to standards. The few companies that take the ISO 17050 route quickly realize that it takes a lot of work to comply with 17050. Nevertheless, self declaration of conformance to any standard should be a viable alternative as long as the organization self declaring is serious and competent about it and the stakeholders place confidence in such mechanisms. An ISO/CASCO presentation on ISO 17050 is attached.

 

[Sandy Simpson]

What I am gleaning from all of this is that maintaining/obtaining a 3rd party certification should always be the way to go. Otherwise all you have is a worthless piece of paper. Makes perfect sense to me. Thank you for the information.

 

[db]

What I am gleaning from all of this is that maintaining/obtaining a 3rd party certification should always be the way to go. Otherwise all you have is a worthless piece of paper. Makes perfect sense to me. Thank you for the information.

Not necessarily. I have two clients who wanted the formality of a QMS without registration. In both cases, the was no "piece of paper". They just developed their QMS and stuck to it. In one case, they had a customer require they get registered, and they were able to do that in under 30 days. The second company is still unregistered. They don't advertise they are compliant, but they are using the QMS to find ways to continually improve. This may be a rare thing, but it does happen from time to time. The bottom line is do you want to say you are compliant, or do you want a QMS that works for you and helps you improve?

 

[Big Jim]

Not necessarily. I have two clients who wanted the formality of a QMS without registration. In both cases, the was no "piece of paper". They just developed their QMS and stuck to it. In one case, they had a customer require they get registered, and they were able to do that in under 30 days. The second company is still unregistered. They don't advertise they are compliant, but they are using the QMS to find ways to continually improve. This may be a rare thing, but it does happen from time to time. The bottom line is do you want to say you are compliant, or do you want a QMS that works for you and helps you improve?

I would have to say it is a rare thing, even a very rare thing. I would also say congratulations to them for seeing the value and acting on it.

 

[AndyN]

What I am gleaning from all of this is that maintaining/obtaining a 3rd party certification should always be the way to go. Otherwise all you have is a worthless piece of paper. Makes perfect sense to me. Thank you for the information.

I believe that one aspect of this discussion is "who you gonna tell?"

If an organization self certifies,and keeps their statements of compliance to themselves, what's the purpose? As they say, "gives you a warm feeling, but no one notices".

If that organization tells a customer, do they run the risk of the "so what?" response?

We're forgetting, I believe, that ISO 9001 (BS 5750) was originally the basis of (individual) agreement on quality between a customer and suppliers. Third party registration was introduced to reduce the need for many organizations to expend resources auditing and agreeing to multiple contractual 'versions' of ISO 9001 (BS 5750) and, therefore cost.

You are, Sandy, correct in that the most value comes from 3rd Party registration - whether everyone subscribes to that or not...