New Trend of not seeking Official ISO 9001 Registration

[QMMike]

I was curious, it seems more and more companies that I've been talking to - as long as having a 3rd party registered quality system is not an official customer requirement - people are starting to let their certification lapse and just state that they have an "ISO (or insert standard here) Compliant Quality System".

This got me thinking --- if it is not a customer requirement, it is basically a sales tool, and if new customers (as well as current customers) still insist on coming in for an audit; a weak sales tool at best, no?

Does it make more business sense to seek registration, obtain it - then if it isn't a customer requirement let it lapse so you aren't wasting money on something that isn't required? From a COQ standpoint, I would think its a no-brainer.

Are these companies on to something? What are your thoughts?

 

[Jen Kirley]

Re: New trend of not seeking official registration

I have often seen the statement "Compliant to ISO 9001:xxxx" and am not sure how many people notice the difference between compliant and certified. Certainly very few are aware of the nonaccredited registrars and the fake accrediting body issuing certificates.

 

[QMMike]

Re: New trend of not seeking official registration

I see it as well. Maybe I am just noticing it more and more now? Not sure, but thinking about it more it makes sense.

 

[isolisa]

Re: New trend of not seeking official registration

We voluntarily de-certified, and called our QMS Compliant. In today's global market, quite a few countries demand it. For those of us in the 9001:2015 world, the certificate just makes things a bit easier...

 

[howste]

Re: New trend of not seeking official registration

I've seen "ISO 9001 compliant" advertised where it means they read the standard once and may have a few things implemented that slightly resemble parts of a QMS. I've audited quite a few suppliers that said compliant on their website but they didn't even have basic things like management review or internal audits. As a 3rd party auditor for many years I can spot the difference quickly, but many people can't.

Certification (or not) is a strategic decision made by the organization. If their important customers require it, they will do it. If their customers don't require it, and it doesn't affect business being awarded to them, they may not. I was a QMS consultant for 10 years. Only one company during that time asked me to help them to implement a QMS for their own benefit (with the possibility of certification later) instead of customer requests for their certification.

 

[Marc]

Re: New trend of not seeking official registration

I see it as well. Maybe I am just noticing it more and more now? Not sure, but thinking about it more it makes sense.

I think you're just noticing it more, ad it may also be that fewer companies are requiring it of their suppliers. I haven't been following the registration stats, but I've been seeing "self declaration" and "self certification", as well as "compliant" for quite a few years now.

I used to do ISO 9001 implementations and my experience goes back to early 1990's. All were for sales or customer requirement, much like howste's experience. That is not to say companies didn't want to see improvements, but that was never the what caused them to seek certification/registration.

 

[dwperron]

Re: New trend of not seeking official registration

BLASPHEMY!!!

Now that I have that out of my system...

I've been fortunate to have worked at organizations that at least took the process of certification and accreditation seriously. They saw the value, and sometimes necessity, that certification can bring to customer and regulatory relationships. However, I have not worked for an organization that utilized these programs as a method of improving their performance. It was all just window dressing. Get through the audits and publish the certificates.

On the other hand, I have also seen that many successful organizations already have an informal program in place that approximates the goals of ISO 9001. They document their processes, have document control, perform corrective action activities, training, etc. They generate performance metrics, gauge customer satisfaction, deal with nonconforming product. They do it because they know these are the right things to do to grow their business. They need to constantly improve to survive!

It still galls me to see "Compliant" statements. I wonder why a customer who determines that ISO registration is important doesn't back that up by requiring the real thing. Whatever happened to "Accept no substitute"?

Today we are far too willing to accept imitations - as long as they are cheaper.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Customers don't care about system certificates in the supply chain. Customers want confidence (assurance if possible) in a reliable, high performing supply chain. Customers want their orders fulfilled as per their expectations. Customers want suppliers to be more of an asset/opportunity and less of a liability/risk.

Management system standards and the associated certification processes are components of an effort to improve supply chain performance. Unfortunately, a high percentage of the interested parties in the global supply chain seek, attain, maintain and/or deliver certificates which are undeserving and dissociated from the confidence they should bring. Let's face it: certification that does not result in higher levels of confidence is useless. So, for almost 30 years now, the management system certification business space is fielded by the whole range of people; in one end, we have the fraudsters, the scam artists, the bozos; in the opposing end, we have the competent, professional, value-adding practitioners; and everything in between. So, to paint certification with a wide brush is to negate the obvious. Not all certificates can be trusted and, unfortunately, that's a fact.

In between a (highly questionable) self declaration of compliance and a 3[sup]rd[/sup] party accredited certification, there is a very sensible logical and confidence-providing solution. Details of such solution may be provided privately.

 

[Edward Reesor]

I haven't noticed this trend but I will start paying attention to it now.

Unfortunately I see this as a result of the ever increasing layers of certification and the associated costs that go along with it. As new standards are being released and others are updated, costs to maintain certification keep escalating. With the MDSAP system, now two auditors will be in attendance plus the submission of the files beforehand. Throw in the unannounced audits both upstream and downstream and you can see how the small companies will be squeezed out. The FDA is supposed to be weaned off the public purse and should become financially self-sufficient through increased fees (according to some national leader whose name escapes me at the moment).

The release of the MDR in Europe may (or will depending on your view) cause the smaller companies to abandon the European market or find strategic partnerships to enter. Razor thin margins cannot sustain such business practices. A good contact of mine has already suggested that the one or two person design shop will be forced out because of the cost and resource commitment.

When I was a licensed healthcare professional, I helped initiate our regional regulatory body. A member of the council mentioned that the licensing fees could be $10,000 annually and those who wish to practice would have to pay it as a necessary cost. What they didn't realize is that the market for these essential but few professionals would collapse as the average practitioner wouldn't pay it.

Sorry for the rant but I'm in training to become a curmudgeon...

 

[Crusader]

After having gone through the first ISO 9001:2015 audit and passing, I now feel that the new revision is annoying and if we did not have a hard requirement for it, I would have discussed with management to let the cert lapse.

The 2008 revision was fine for our organization and these new Top Mgmt responsibilities are a bit much. IP's and Context of the Org, etc. that is private stuff that should be let alone and not audited at all.

Just my