Reasons for the Decline of ISO 9001 Registrations in North America (circa 2010)

[ISO 9001 Guy]

I know of a large trucking company headquartered in Sioux City, IA that was certified for a couple of years. But they dropped it because it wasn't effective or cost effective. Of course, this is a complaint from many organizations.
Like many organizations finding ISO 9000 to be ineffective, they adopted procedures based upon the elements of the standard. These were espoused to represent the quality processes of their quality management system.
Like many organizations adopting procedures reflecting the elements of the standard, they found the documentation cumbersome and confusing.
Having been assured their system was properly implemented, evidenced by registration to ISO 9002, they dropped it a couple of years later. ISO 9000 was regarded as being a racket. From their experience with it, I can't blame them.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I know of a large trucking company headquartered in Sioux City, IA that was certified for a couple of years. But they dropped it because it wasn't effective or cost effective. Of course, this is a complaint from many organizations.
Like many organizations finding ISO 9000 to be ineffective, they adopted procedures based upon the elements of the standard. These were espoused to represent the quality processes of their quality management system.
Like many organizations adopting procedures reflecting the elements of the standard, they found the documentation cumbersome and confusing.
Having been assured their system was properly implemented, evidenced by registration to ISO 9002, they dropped it a couple of years later. ISO 9000 was regarded as being a racket. From their experience with it, I can't blame them.

There were effective (and ineffective) quality management systems long before ISO 9001 or even BS5750. To think that a quality management system succeeds or fails because of an extrinsic standard, or how the standard is implemented, is a bit shortsighted.

 

[ISO 9001 Guy]

There were effective (and ineffective) quality management systems long before ISO 9001 or even BS5750. To think that a quality management system succeeds or fails because of an extrinsic standard, or how the standard is implemented, is a bit shortsighted.

I think the organization was short-sighted in believing a consultant who told them that adopting the elemental procedures was a good idea. Too bad they had such a bad experience--they have and had an excellent quality management system regardless of their certification. It was the awful procedures they adopted--procedures defining their QMS in terrible fashion, that led them to the conclusion that the system (as defined) was snake oil. (They were right.)

 

[Helmut Jilling]

I have exercise equipment in my home, recommended by a consultant. But, I am puffy and overweight. So OBVIOUSLY, the equipment is not effective, and the consultant misled me. It can't be MY fault?

Or, perhaps, I did not diligently learn how to use it, and diligently keep at it.

I have NEVER audited a company that diligently implemented a system, then told me it does not work. Never...

 

[JaneB]

I have exercise equipment in my home, recommended by a consultant. But, I am puffy and overweight. So OBVIOUSLY, the equipment is not effective, and the consultant misled me. It can't be MY fault?

Or, perhaps, I did not diligently learn how to use it, and diligently keep at it.

I have NEVER audited a company that diligently implemented a system, then told me it does not work. Never...

Agree with you. Similarly, I have never worked with a company that diligently worked at understanding the Standard (its principles as well as its specific requirements) and implementing it who did not report getting a lot of benefit from doing it. Never.

 

[JaneB]

Having been assured their system was properly implemented, evidenced by registration to ISO 9002, they dropped it a couple of years later. ISO 9000 was regarded as being a racket. From their experience with it, I can't blame them.

Hmm.
Even if so, one swallow does not a summer make.

 

[ISO 9001 Guy]

I have exercise equipment in my home, recommended by a consultant. But, I am puffy and overweight. So OBVIOUSLY, the equipment is not effective, and the consultant misled me. It can't be MY fault?

Or, perhaps, I did not diligently learn how to use it, and diligently keep at it.

I have NEVER audited a company that diligently implemented a system, then told me it does not work. Never...

Back in the 90's, finding a consultant who did NOT recommend procedures based upon the standard was hard to do. Plenty of them still recommend such procedures.

 

[Randy]

Having been assured their system was properly implemented, evidenced by registration to ISO 9002, they dropped it a couple of years later. ISO 9000 was regarded as being a racket. From their experience with it, I can't blame them.

The big DUH comes to play here unless there is something else we don't know....ISO 9002 has been dead in the water since 2000 so if they were still using 9002 they were only 12 years behind the power curve to begin with.

That being stated, the cumbersomeness complaint even under the present revision is more often than not either a self inflicted wound, or because customers or regulators say "thou shalt, and you ain't got no choice"

And quite honestly, the lack of benefit from a QMS can be boiled down to a very, very simple acronym....GIGO, because in truth its what is commonly seen.

The universe strives to be in balance and Newton explained it....Equal and opposite (you will get out that equal to what you put in)

 

[JaneB]

Back in the 90's, finding a consultant who did NOT recommend procedures based upon the standard was hard to do. Plenty of them still recommend such procedures.

Hard? Perhaps. And yes, there's some dodo consultants still around also. Every field I have ever come across has good and bad people in it! But there were consultants around who were not taking that approach then too. I was one of them, as Marc.

Caveat emptor. GIGO.

It still isn't reasonable or logical to insist no fault at all with the company you instance and all fault/blame must lie with the Standard.

And this remains only a single example, and hence somewhat of a distraction or tangential path of debate.

 

[Boingo-boingo]

I can't reconcile these two sentences

they have and had an excellent quality management system

and

It was the awful procedures they adopted

Either they had a good QMS and DID NOT ADOPT the procedures, OR they adopted the bad procedures and, thus, could not have a good QMS.