ISO9001:2008 - What a complete joke!

[vanputten]

Hello Sidney:

First you suggest that auditees should police auditors via the forces of capitalism. Now you are stating that in some cases certificates are treated like commodities where the lowest bidder wins. I think this may undermine your proposal of auditees policing the auditors.

Goal setting can be so damaging. The customer requires certification. The organization will go out and get the certification because that is the goal. The customer's purchasing department trickles down the requirement with no understanding of the reason for the requirement. There is no emphasis on continual improvement or reduction in variation. There is no push from the customer to the organization to understand their system, systems thinking, understanding the variation there in, the value stream, theory of knowledge, etc. The requirement from the customer is the certificate so the organization gets the certificate from the lowest bidder and is most delighted if the audit process is easy and fast.

Also, I don't understand why you are treating this as an either / or issue. Can't we allow capitalism (market forces) and the complaint processes to improve the industry? Can't we do both?

Are you saying that ANAB and the IAF should not provide a complaint process? Organizations should not have the opportunity to provide feedback to the Accreditation Bodies on the performance of the Certification Bodies?

And for organizations in non-capitalistic governments, there may be some significant constraints or ineffectiveness with market forces driving improvement in conformity assessment.

I don't understand but I don't really need to understand. I'll let the members of the Elsmar Cove battle it out and improve the ISO 9000 and conformity assessment worlds.

Good luck with this and other threads!

 

[Sidney Vianna]

First you suggest that auditees should police auditors via the forces of capitalism. Now you are stating that in some cases certificates are treated like commodities where the lowest bidder wins. I think this may undermine your proposal of auditees policing the auditors.

I don't think so. Let me offer an analogy: You determine that you are tired of glasses and decides to have a lasik corrective surgery. While cost is a component of your decision making process, I doubt any risk conscious person would decide on who they would have lasik surgery with, based SOLELY on cost. Although many disagree, I do believe that a CB selection is a very important decision and should never ever be decided on price alone.

Goal setting can be so damaging. The customer requires certification. The organization will go out and get the certification because that is the goal. The customer's purchasing department trickles down the requirement with no understanding of the reason for the requirement. There is no emphasis on continual improvement or reduction in variation. There is no push from the customer to the organization to understand their system, systems thinking, understanding the variation there in, the value stream, theory of knowledge, etc. The requirement from the customer is the certificate so the organization gets the certificate from the lowest bidder and is most delighted if the audit process is easy and fast.

What just reinforces my previous point. If the customer is ignorant on why they are asking suppliers to be certified and the registrants are also ignorant about choices, we run the risk of ending up with certificates that add zero value.

Are you saying that ANAB and the IAF should not provide a complaint process? Organizations should not have the opportunity to provide feedback to the Accreditation Bodies on the performance of the Certification Bodies?

Certainly we need feedback and complaint mechanisms. My point is that you treat the issue differently if it is YOUR CB not performing to your expectations. It is different if it is your supplier CB not performing. For that, you must have the complaint loops.

Certainly, you can lodge a complaint against your own CB with AB's and the IAF. I was just making a point that, since they are your supplier, you probably have other means to force them to institute corrective actions.

 

[John Broomfield]

Hello Sidney:

First you suggest that auditees should police auditors via the forces of capitalism. Now you are stating that in some cases certificates are treated like commodities where the lowest bidder wins. I think this may undermine your proposal of auditees policing the auditors.

Goal setting can be so damaging. The customer requires certification. The organization will go out and get the certification because that is the goal. The customer's purchasing department trickles down the requirement with no understanding of the reason for the requirement. There is no emphasis on continual improvement or reduction in variation. There is no push from the customer to the organization to understand their system, systems thinking, understanding the variation there in, the value stream, theory of knowledge, etc. The requirement from the customer is the certificate so the organization gets the certificate from the lowest bidder and is most delighted if the audit process is easy and fast.

Also, I don't understand why you are treating this as an either / or issue. Can't we allow capitalism (market forces) and the complaint processes to improve the industry? Can't we do both?

Are you saying that ANAB and the IAF should not provide a complaint process? Organizations should not have the opportunity to provide feedback to the Accreditation Bodies on the performance of the Certification Bodies?

And for organizations in non-capitalistic governments, there may be some significant constraints or ineffectiveness with market forces driving improvement in conformity assessment.

I don't understand but I don't really need to understand. I'll let the members of the Elsmar Cove battle it out and improve the ISO 9000 and conformity assessment worlds.

Good luck with this and other threads!

vanputten,

For some reason some quality professionals have not done a good job of explaining the goal to senior managers and the noble benefits that can be had with a management system that goes beyond the goal of certification.

Silence, grumbling or incomprehesible mumbling allows the goal to do its damage.

Thanks for raising this powerful point.

John

 

[LSS Master]

ISO 9000 never seems to lose its ability to spark anumated conversation! I agree with amny of the contributors - you get out of it what you put into it. Its not the certification that brings value, its the spirit of following the guidelines in designing and executing the QMS.

I would like to share two perspectives:

A large part of my practice, which has spanned 30 years, is process improvement - Lean, Six Sigma, Theory of Constraints, and yes, ISO 9001. We also lead corporate turnarounds, mergers, and acquisitions in which ISO 9001 provides a framework which we use to analyze the organizations we assist. We have used this methodology in industry, but also in educational settings, such as schools and colleges; service providers, such as law firms, counseling, and medical organizations; and hospitality, such as golf resorts, hotels, and spas. In short, we find it to be a very useful tool.

Secondly, the Harvard Business School has an as-yet unpublished research paper (the first of its kind) that reports on research done on the benefits that companies receive from becoming ISO 9001 registered. Faster growth, higher profits, lower turnover rates, lower liability and accident rates are just a few that were mentioned in the report (I was intrigued by the lower accident rate, which has nothing to do with ISO 9001, and discovered that the structured work environment tends to have workers working in a more careful and safe manner). The report goes on to discuss that smaller companies see a larger benefit from being ISO 9001 registered than larger companies, probably due to the fact that they tend to be less structured prior to achieving registration.

So, we have found that there is a lot more to be gained from ISO 9001 than merely improving the QMS, if an organization is willing and creative enough to see the possibilities.

Thanks for all the great viewpoints and discussions - and for providing the opportunity for me to contribute!

 

[John Broomfield]

All,

Here is the draft Harvard Report for review and factual comment to the authors...

Scientific study is a wonderful thing.

John

 

[J Allen]

My two cents. I think the changes made to ISO9001:2000 which were incorporated and became ISO9001:2008 were the joke.
I'm sure that there are more substantial changes that should have been made besides the "clarifications" that were made that had no substantial effect on the spec.

 

[bobdoering]

Can we use an analogy here? Lots of people get driver's license, but the way some of them drive you would think it's a "joke." So, is that is an indictment of licensing? Or might it be that in spite of the license, it has more to do with the attitude and application of the license holder - especially once they have the license in their hand?

 

[John Broomfield]

My two cents. I think the changes made to ISO9001:2000 which were incorporated and became ISO9001:2008 were the joke.
I'm sure that there are more substantial changes that should have been made besides the "clarifications" that were made that had no substantial effect on the spec.

J Allen,

Agreed, hopefully you have updated the Cove's thread on what new requirements should go into ISO 9001:2014?

John

 

[J Allen]

John,
"I've already started makin' notes."
I guess that I am a skeptic as to the importance of the changes made to become :2008, not the spec itself. I do agree with most of the others that when properly implemented, companies will benefit.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

(the first of its kind)

We've had previous similar studies. See attached.