New Trend of not seeking Official ISO 9001 Registration

[Randy]

Good girl!

 

[Trebor123]

Yes its out there

Big Global players like Exxon Mobil dont have ISO's

All they have is a statement from Lloyds Register stating that they meet the current requirements..

yeah right they do.. not..

so how many other companies have this in place and dont actually meet the current legislation or regulations but tell worldwide governments and the public that they do meet the "requirements" !!!

blag blag bla bla bla...

 

[hogheavenfarm]

As of last year, we self certified to "ISO9001:2008 compliant". There have been no repercussions. Management dropped pursuing certification due to some specific items like the 'risk' and 'strategic direction' which they wished to keep private. Also the bit about 'emotionally safe workplace' put the finishing touches on it. Our customer have been demanding more specific requirements in addition to ISO9001 anyway, so they do not see 9001 as contributing much of anything useful. As as result they created ISO 22163 to deal with 9001's lack of specifics. In our industry this trend has been going on for the past decade.

ADD: ISO/TS 22163:2017 - Railway applications -- Quality management system -- Business management system requirements for rail organizations: ISO 9001:2015 and particular requirements for application in the rail sector

 

[Crusader]

We are headed to going back to having a "Business Plan" from the QS-9000 days.
Oh wait, that was not auditable...now it is and it's called IP and COTO, etc. HA!

 

[Marc]

@Crusader - Are you automotive, as in IATF 16949?

 

[Crusader]

@Crusader - Are you automotive, as in IATF 16949?

No, we are not automotive.

 

[Big Jim]

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.

From what I have observed, without the discipline of being audited by a 3rd party, those that claim conformance without certification are just pretenders. Even if they start out with a desire to be diligent, they just can't keep it up.

I have seen companies that have lost their certification and since it was a customer requirement they went out of business.

I wonder if the actual count of registered companies has gone down or if this is just part of the ebb and flow.

 

[LUV-d-4UM]

True your company can opt o be compliant to Industry required certification as long as you are not a supplier to an OEM customer. Conformance to Industry required certification can be a marketing tool to be competitive in the market place. Simply saying that your company is compliant to ISOXXXX does not cut it. Prove it.

 

[GStough]

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.

I've seen the same thing in some of the supplier audits that I've done. Recently, in fact, a supplier claimed to be compliant to ISO 9001:2008. The quality manual described the processes they had in place (which, btw, looked pretty decent), but when asked for the procedures that defined them, they didn't have anything. And the processes described in the quality manual? Yeah, those either didn't exist or were not as mature as one would expect.

 

[hogheavenfarm]

Re: New trend of not seeking official registration

Yes, of course the proof is in the audit. But even w/ ISO9001, our customers still insisted on site audits, so there was no advantage to being certified. Now we are still audited (as before) but are not certified, makes no difference to them. They did not consider 9001 "good enough" for anything, they each audited us top to bottom. Now all I get is every three years they do a "desk audit". These are top tier customers, but our industry is a bit different. That said, we have passed every audit with little to no findings, but I suspect that will end now, as we will not be compliant to the 2015 version. I expect that may generate a few NC's but TM is willing to live with that, as we are sole source for many items.