One year to ISO 9001 and 14001 transition deadline. ISO & IAF communique'

[Sidney Vianna]

ISO/CASCO and the IAF released a joint announcement reminding the World that we have one year before the deadline for ISO 9001 and 14001 transitions.

(broken link removed)

If the benefits of the new editions are so obvious, why do we have the traditional procrastination? Shouldn't organizations rush to adopt them?

 

[Marc]

What "new" additions? The changes were so minor that I am astounded that any companies are still wrestling with the "transition".

I also have to smile when I see them state that 1.3 million companies have registered considering there are somewhere between 120,000,000 to 200,000,000 companies in the world (e.g.: EconStats : Total businesses registered (number). World Bank data cf ). The top 15 countries per GDP have 180 million companies. Registration to ISO 9001, not to mention the toothless ISO 14001, isn't (obviously) important to the vast majority of businesses.

I know there are people that swear ISO 9001 has done wonders for their company, but that only makes me wonder how bad their problems were to begin with.

 

[Ajit Basrur]

Interesting points, Marc

 

[Sidney Vianna]

ISO just released the 2016 ISO Survey. For the USA, it shows another year of decline in ISO 9001 certificates, according to their numbers.

So, China, the 2nd largest economy in the World, has over 350,000 ISO 9001 certificates, while the USA has less than 10% of that.

 

[Marc]

If 1,300,000 companies are registered, and let's say there are approximately 150,000,000,companies in the world, that gives us 0.0086% of all companies are registered. If the benefits of ISO 9001 are so significant, why are so few companies registered? Not to mention, what, exactly, are the "benefits"?

I don't even want to begin to try to come up with a figure of how much money companies are spending for consultants and making internal changes to "comply" with the new revision.

Nor do I remember anywhere that there is a realistic estimation of how much money a typical company actually saves (or how much new business they have gotten) based upon their being ISO 9001 certified.

As to China, from what I can tell there are (data from 2013 - China has 40.6 million private businesses - MarketWatch ) The number of individually owned businesses and private enterprises in China exceeded 40.6 million. Then again, according to How Many Companies in China? | China Checkup there are approximately 77,469,000 businesses in China.

350,000 ÷ 40,600,000 = 0.0862%
350,000 ÷ 77,469,000 = 0.0045%

Just some thoughts.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

If the benefits of ISO 9001 are so significant, why are so few companies registered? Not to mention, what, exactly, are the "benefits"?

Fair question. The intended primary beneficiary of ISO 9001 are supposed to be the customers of the organizations that follow and/or attain certification to ISO 9001. The intended benefit to the customers of the 9001-compliant organization is to provide confidence that the customers orders will be fulfilled to their expectations. As we all know, in the business world, having confidence that your supply chain will not drop the ball is priceless.

So, if there was undisputable evidence that suppliers that comply and/or are certified to ISO 9001 are better performing, the whole global customer chain would be flowing down ISO 9001 (and certification) at a much higher rate and we would not see developed economies such as the USA and the UK dropping the need for suppliers conformance to ISO 9001, as the ISO Survey data shows.

 

[Marc]

I have seen other stories on the origin of ISO 9001, but I remember in 1994 speaking with a fellow whose name I can't remember, but claimed to know the story and it goes back before 1987, obviously. I remember it was a fellow from Europe and he was one of the people giving a Lead Auditor course (the first one of several I took over the years).

Essentially he said it came from the problem in Europe (as the EU was developing - think back to the 1960's and the "Common Market" as Europe continued to rise from the ashes of WW II) between countries where, for example, if a person/company in Germany bought from a company in Italy, and, for example, some was killed by a product. Liability. This was especially critical when it came to automotive and products with potential safety issues. The original ISO 9001 was meant to ensure companies had certain documented systems and certain records which imposed upon them a liability aspect and would allow that to "cross borders". What it really came down to was a company having documented processes with records of having followed procedures. The original "Say what you do, do what you say, and document that you did".

Did it work? I guess it did to some degree, but over time ISO 9001's role was made obsolete by subsequent requirements specific countries have made and standards such as AS9100 and the oh so numerous medical device and drug standards (to address only 2 industries).

And you can see some of the downfall of its original intent in the elimination of required procedures and records. It now claims: "The new ISO 9001 promotes enhanced leadership involvement in the management system, introduces risk-based thinking and aligns the quality management system policy and objectives with the strategy of the organisation..." As if companies did not assess risk before, and as if upper management is now going to be more involved because ISO 9001 says they have to. And "Realising the benefits of the new versions will deliver improved performance." And a) define performance, and b) what evidence is there that ISO 9001 has been a significant driver in companies improving? This is a sales pitch - No more, no less.

I do want to say - I'm in no way "anti-" ISO 9001. It isn't bad per se. It's just that it is simplistic and really easy to comply with. In 1990 when I first saw it I said that it was totally basic requirements and I had never seen anything so simple before. My opinion hasn't changed.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I have seen other stories on the origin of ISO 9001, but I remember in 1994 speaking with a fellow whose name I can't remember, but claimed to know the story and it goes back before 1987, obviously. I remember it was a fellow from Europe and he was one of the people giving a Lead Auditor course (the first one of several I took over the years).

the best account I could ever find from the immediate preceding story of ISO 9001 is available in (broken link removed) and the attachment contained therein.

The document has certainly deviated a lot from it's original intent.

 

[Marc]

the best account I could ever find from the immediate preceding story of ISO 9001 is available in (broken link removed) and the attachment contained therein.

The document has certainly deviated a lot from it's original intent.

Quality_Assurance_by_Spike_Spickernell[1].pdf is a good, interesting read, though it is mostly aimed at "quality". Thanks for the link to the old post here.

To my "Say what you do, do what you say, and document that you did" I can only add "and tell us what you want".

I remember the not to long ago "problem" when some US company ordered a bunch of little toys which were painted with lead paint. The bottom line was the US company did not specify paint properties to the Chinese manufacturer, so the manufacturer used some cheap paint. Whose was really "at fault"? Of course in this case it had nothing to do with the "quality" of the product - It was a safety issue the US company failed to address when they came up with specifications for the manufacturer (this is what I want).

Spickernell says: "Now it meant that the item was manufactured under conditions that were regularly audited to ensure that every item conformed to specification." Back to the basic "Say what you do, do what you say, and document that you did", but add to it "...according to the specifications we agreed upon...".

What I do see is that standards and specifications have come a long way, but, I think, mostly due to lawsuits and catastrophic events. I am all for it, and it is why I cringe as, and I hate to be political, renewed calls to reduce or eliminate regulations in many industries in the name of "increasing shareholder value" - Reducing or eliminating so many things that save lives.

I will say that reading through Spickernell's paper, it brought back memories to me as I was working in the defense industry in the 1980's and why, as I said above, I was "shocked" to read ISO 9001:1987 and say it was super basics. I even remember BS 5750, which was one of a number (typically hundreds and sometimes thousands) of documents in 1980's DoD contracts which were referenced in contracts

During my time in defense companies I had read so many standards and specifications, so many MIL-SPECS, so many contracts that ISO 9001 was - "Surely you're kidding if this is all you want". Reading Spickernell's paper - Yes - I remember what the defense industry was like. I would just love to see the contract requirements for the F-35... (I really would!)

And remember as you read BS Spickernell's paper, it was mostly DoD related until the 1980's, and the key word was "quality" (which even then was a somewhat loose term if one tried to define it). E.g.: Quality - Has your definition of Quality changed over time? and Quality - What is your Definition of "Quality"?

Of note is that Spickernell is big on standards throughout his paper. Now, what is a "standard"? It is a set of requirements. Like I say - Brings back memories, for example when I was involved in writing "Quality Assurance Program Plans". Hundreds of "standards" to cross reference and evaluate so I could make sure they were addressed within the program plan. Most of what I worked with were critical aerospace and submarine electronics. Want to talk about exacting requirements...

Anyway, thanks for the memories.

 

[RoxaneB]

I do sometimes wonder if the organization that creates and publishes ISO should be ISO certified. I am curious how they would adequately ascertain their customers' wants and requirements.

Revising a standard and having organizations transition over to it requires Change Management 101. Tell us why the current (i.e., 2008 version) doesn't meet our needs and tell us why the new one (i.e.,2015 version) is so freaking awesome. A poor job of change management could be one variable in the low transition numbers.

Then there's the basic business angle. An organization wants to keep its money or spend it on something that has immediate, tangible return on investment. If there is a fairly lengthy transition period to the new standard, where was the push to transition when it first came out? Where was the ROI on an immediate transition? Buy a new piece of equipment needed to expand the business or certify to a new standard that doesn't come due for a few years? I know where I'd be spending money.

That's not to say that, as an organization, I'd simply let my QMS lapse. Perhaps organizations have been getting their systems ready, taking the time to transition them to the new requirements, but holding off on the actual certification process.