Self Proclamation of ISO 9001 Certification and Compliance

[nonaynever - 2008]

Re: Self Proclation of ISO 9001 Certification and Compliance

"Yes we are CSCI Certified"

 

[solutions]

Re: Self Proclation of ISO 9001 Certification and Compliance

I know, we can become official self-certifier notaries! No audits, just an official stamp.

 

[Old Quality Gal]

Re: Self Proclation of ISO 9001 Certification and Compliance

Thank you for all of the input. While you folks were sharing I continued to do some research including some papers I wrote back in the early 90s about selecting a registrar.
The bottom line is you all ( yes I am a southerner) correctly state that one can certify themselves to anything. What they will not have is one of the fundamental benefits a registrar brings to the table.
It may not even be important with the proliferation of registrars today but when I wrote the white paper I reread their were only 18 Registrars around. That benefit is "letter's of agreement". Registrars have various letters of agreements that assure their registration mark and the assessments it represents is accepted in various countries by various agencies.
There was a time when only a one registrar could assess boiler makers and power plants. Likewise in the early days there were only a couple of registrars that could assess software development. I remember this clearly because I am one of those nearly extinct species called a TickIT assessor.
I suspect that today you have a wealth of choices but in my opinion ( off topic here) it has lead to total mediocrity. Most of the registrar employed assessors I encounters are Jacks of all trades and masters of none.
I guess I will send this lady some nifty clip art and suggest she print herself a fancy certificate.
By the way all your talk about Squirrels reminds me of a true story. I had the honor of being at Walt Boomer, former Commandant of the USMC's retirement party. We met during Desert Storm. When he found out I was from Ky he asked if I had ever heard of something he did when he was a young boy in the country ( barking squirrels). I had indeed. That is when you hunt a squirrel with a 30 30 and you aim to hit the tree right close to them! The concussion kills them without a scratch, only a really good marksman can do it well. Anyway enough old stories. Thanks again for the help and the reference to the other thread. It was informative.

 

[Greg B]

How can ANYONE certify themselves??? Will the certificate have:

Company XYZ hereby declares
that they are certified to 9K2K
by Company XYZ​

"Please ring US and WE will tell you how good WE are"​

What a load of crock!!! Now, I did work at a company that disagreed with having to be certified, as they were having a war with the governing body at the time, so we scrapped certification but kept our SYSTEM. We told customers that we had a QA system but it was not certified. Thye did not take to well to that so we ended up going back to certification.

 

[Wes Bucey]

I, as much as anyone, appreciate the opportunities for humor here.

Let's return to the original post and give Old Quality Gal a response she can take back to her "client."

First, the straight answer.
There is no Standard which calls for third party ACCREDITED CERTIFYING BODY to attest to an organization's conformance and compliance to the Standard.

That said, the real world answer is that the primary requirement of the modern Quality Management System Standards (ISO901:2000; ISO 13485; TS 16949; etc.) is to "meet customer requirements." Customers (and in the case of ISO 13485, some regulatory bodies) dictate whether they will accept anything other than a certificate of registration from a third party ACCREDITED CERTIFYING BODY to attest to an organization's conformance and compliance to the Standard.

As suggested by Coury, the consequences of being "caught" in the deception could be a larger financial penalty (loss of a customer) than the cost of the third party registration.

Ultimately, the organization and its top management make an economic decision whether they "need" registration or can function well and profitably by mere self-proclamation (adequately backed up by proof if anyone wants to come and audit before giving business) or whether they need to pay the money and join the mainstream of registered organizations.

Disclaimer: I ran a high tech contract manufacturer for ten years, self-declaring compliance to ISO 9002:1994 and QS-9000, but we DID have an FDA certification. As I have written in dozens of threads both here in the Cove and in the ASQ Forums, we "walked the walk" and invited ANY customer or prospect to come in and compare our operation to the Standards. Our customers invited us to show them things about managing a QMS.

The bottom line is self-declaration is possible, but circumstances are making self-declaration less and less fiscally feasible in terms of attracting and keeping customers who are too lazy or unwilling to accept non-registered suppliers into their supply chains.

 

[Old Quality Gal]

Thanks Wes!
I also reread TS 16949:2002 Automotive Certification Scheme for ISO/TS 16949:2002 2nd edition.
Page 1 section 1 says: "The certification body shall be accredited for ISO 9001:2000 certification activities by a national accreditation body." It finishes by saying the results go into an IATF database.
My response to my client was that credible people reading their website claims, business cards, stationary etc would not see an accreditation mark that they recognize and would at best dismiss the claim as complaint to but not registered and at worse would think that the client was trying to claim something they were not entitled to claim. I urged her, as I have previously, to claim compliance only. There is no stigma in that claim it is totally legitimate for a company to have a system and police themselves for cost purposes or if market and customer forces are not driving the initiative.
Everyone's input was appreciated especially the humorous content!

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Re: Self Proclation of ISO 9001 Certification and Compliance

...( barking squirrels). I had indeed. That is when you hunt a squirrel with a 30 30 and you aim to hit the tree right close to them! The concussion kills them without a scratch, only a really good marksman can do it well...

And here I thought only ISO and TS kill trees...

 

[JadeS]

Hi,

The Organization I work for actually thought about self-proclamation for compliance to ISO 9001:2000 for our non-automotive divisions since there is not 1 customer requiring this standard be met. At the end we decided against this and all Companies are certified by a 3rd Party Registrar to keep everyone on their toes - to a certain extent anyway.

This said I find it noteworthy that the new standard ISO/IEC 17021:2006 - Conformity Assessment has been released. This is the requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems for quality and environmental, as well as quite a few other standards. This will meet the requirements of IAF (International Accreditation Forum). It replaces Guides 62 & 66.

The intent is harmonization globally.

Jade

 

[Sidney Vianna]

This said I find it noteworthy that the new standard ISO/IEC 17021:2006 - Conformity Assessment has been released. This is the requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems for quality and environmental, as well as quite a few other standards. This will meet the requirements of IAF (International Accreditation Forum). It replaces Guides 62 & 66.

The intent is harmonization globally.

Jade

Jade, the ISO/IEC 17021 standard replacing ISO Guides 62 and 66 and the the fact that the IAF's Guidance to ISO/IEC Guides 62 and 66 will need to be revised have been discussed here, at length. But I don't understand the comment on this thread. None of these documents have anything to do with self declaration of compliance. Did I miss something?

 

[JadeS]

Jade, the ISO/IEC 17021 standard replacing ISO Guides 62 and 66 and the the fact that the IAF's Guidance to ISO/IEC Guides 62 and 66 will need to be revised have been discussed here, at length. But I don't understand the comment on this thread. None of these documents have anything to do with self declaration of compliance. Did I miss something?

Well actually I said I find it noteworthy that basically the 'powers that be' are coming out with more stringent requirements and rules over what is currently in place. At some point in time it would not surprise me if there are additional requirements concerning what we can and cannot state as far as this topic goes.

As for what is reported elsewhere, I do not fully know. When I have time I basically go to the latest in 24 hours and try to be of asistance if at all possible since I have a lot of years experience and hope to be able to provide some of what I learn to others when possible. I spend considerable time on business travel and do not go to many areas of the forum therefore if I stated something that has already been talked about; please disregard.

Jade