Self Proclamation of ISO 9001 Certification and Compliance

[Randy]

Re: Self Proclation of ISO 9001 Certification and Compliance

Can we just come up with a certificate design, then & agree a cartel (4 figure) price, lol?

You can do whatever you want, but we already discussed this here in the Cove a couple of years ago and I offered up my corporation (DSEQ, Inc.) as the certifier so we probaly have some property rights or something.

As for the original Thread starter Old Quality Gal, tell your client to do whatever floats their boat with the understanding that their claim may at sometime be required to be verified and found to be a bogus pile of dribble if that's what it really is and sounds like.

Additionally if they want to short cut this what else are they shortcutting and could health or safety of their customers or others be affected by those shortcuts?

Does verasity come to play here? (I may have misspelled it, its 1217 am and I need to go beddy bye)

 

[Coury Ferguson]

I may see some pros and cons to self-proclamation:

Con, and the most important one

1. The potential loss of customer(s) based on a decision to claim a company is registered to a Quality Management System. When just a little research could identify that this not true.

Note: I worked for a company that had a "Certificate" of Registration, that looked official and had some strange accreditation mark. I spent maybe five (5) minutes performing a search of the CB (which had the initials of QMS-not the AB QMS) and found that they were not accredited by any AB either in the USA or Europe. Further research found that their parent company was a computer software company. I brought this up to Management and they decided to keep it the way it was since they claimed it was still valid. I argued the point as I stated in 1 above at no avail. If I was a potential or current company thinking of using this company for more business, and I found out about this, I would had pulled all existing orders because I would have felt that if they are not accredited, but are claiming to be, which I would have felt "How can I trust this company?"

Pro

1. I don't see any for claiming to be Certified/Registered with a certificate with no AB or CB marks.

2. Self-Proclaiming - The certificate has no bearing on if the company can produce product that meets or exceeds Customer expectations, however if handled properly it can still benefit a company by providing a documented and consistent way of doing business.

Just my added

 

[Jim Wynne]

It's not clear to me whether OQG's (the OP) client was talking about using deception (making it appear that his company is registered when it isn't) or just self-certifying and and being on the up-and-up about it. Clearly the former case is stupid, probably penurious, and isn't likely to have a happy ending. If the latter case is true, however, customers will be free to take the "certification" at face value and act accordingly. Whether or not it makes good business sense to openly self-certify is something each business that considers it has to consider, and there are too many variables involved for any of us to be able to give reliable advice.

 

[Coury Ferguson]

It's not clear to me whether OQG's (the OP) client was talking about using deception (making it appear that his company is registered when it isn't) or just self-certifying and and being on the up-and-up about it. Clearly the former case is stupid, probably penurious, and isn't likely to have a happy ending. If the latter case is true, however, customers will be free to take the "certification" at face value and act accordingly. Whether or not it makes good business sense to openly self-certify is something each business that considers it has to consider, and there are too many variables involved for any of us to be able to give reliable advice.

I think she already stated that the Company may want to print a certificate to claim Registered to ISO9001:2000:

She wants me to point out to her which standard and where is says explicitly that she can't print her own certificate and pronounce her company not just compliant but "certified" to ISO 9001:2000.

You could read the above statement either way.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I think she already stated that the Company may want to print a certificate to claim Registered to ISO9001:2000:

Coury, you say "claim registered" and then quote the OP as saying "certified." There's a big difference, which is why I said that there's nothing in evidence in this thread to indicate whether the person in question is suggesting use of deliberate deception.

 

[D.Scott]

I would like to point out that although there may be a way around 3rd party certification in some instances, the loopholes do not apply to TS 16949. I know this is an ISO9001:2000 thread but an earlier post mistakenly included TS in the discussion.

As was earlier pointed out, use of an accredited 3rd party is required for the organization. 7.4.1.2 also states the same requirement for suppliers when complying with the requirement to be certified to a minimum of ISO9001:2000.

Another snag is Customer Requirements. Many customers have included accredited 3rd party certification.

Dave

 

[Coury Ferguson]

Coury, you say "claim registered" and then quote the OP as saying "certified." There's a big difference, which is why I said that there's nothing in evidence in this thread to indicate whether the person in question is suggesting use of deliberate deception.

Our Certificate states "This is to certify that the Quality System of (Company name) Has been found to conform to Quality Management System Standard: ISO9001:2000."

There are semantics here. Once you have been Certified you are placed in a Register (most CBs) that you are registered under a certain QMS.

Maybe you are right that there really isn't "deliberate deception" here. But to print out a Certificate claiming to be certified? If there is no intent there than I am misreading the statement.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Maybe you are right that there really isn't "deliberate deception" here.

And maybe I'm not. That's the point--given the information available, there's no way to tell.

 

[Coury Ferguson]

And maybe I'm not. That's the point--given the information available, there's no way to tell.

Maybe Old Quality Gal can provide some enlightening information on the specific intent of the company.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Late to the party but keen to play catch up.

She wants me to point out to her which standard and where is says explicitly that she can't print her own certificate and pronounce her company not just compliant but "certified" to ISO 9001:2000.

There is nothing to stop your client self proclaiming compliance with ISO 9001. The standard encourages people to use it for their own benefit and to design their systems.

She wants to know precisely which standard says you need 3rd party accreditation.

Again no requirement from any standard. Some customers may require either an ISO 9001 compliant system OR a 3rd party registered system. 3rd party registration is one way some customers have confidence that the system meets the requirements of the standard and therefore they can use a 3rd party certificate to give them confidence the supplier should be able to meet their own product / service requirements.

BTW third party accreditation is not the same as certification. Accreditation (as the wiki will tell you here is recognition by an authoritative body - so certification bodies / registrars are accredited, their clients are assessed and if successful are certified / registered.

Of course many companies generate statements of compliance or conformance in lieu of 3rd party registration and there are some large companies who can quasi self-assess such as Motorola, a client of mine. But they still have an accredited 3rd part registrar monitor their program and keep it honest.

As has been covered elsewhere anyone can self certify, where it may fall down is if your customer wants to see a certificate issued by an accredited body.

Where some of the bigger guys get away with it is if they self certify and their customers either don't know or don't care.

Not sure about the Motorola example - I don't have sufficient knowledge of how they manage their certification.

I am aware of some other companies that have very limited assessment of their main processes because their own internal quality audit process is seen to be sufficient - I personally think this stinks as it says something about their system having been given as thorough a look at as any other certified company and I don't believe that is the case.

:truce: Stand back and wait for the bullets to fly

Any comments guys/gals?

"What ISO/IEC Guide or Standard (or other) states that certify or certified cannot be used in relationship to statements of self proclamation of conformance or internal to the company a 2nd party or self assessment has been done and now claims of certification are made? "

As a direct response I would say: "There is no standard or guidance that states you cannot use the term certify or certified in connect with your own claim of conformance with the requirements of any standard. If, when asked by your existing or potential or existing customer the organization should make it clear that this is an internal assessment of compliance and it has not been assessed by an accredited certification body / registrar. It may be that any use of claims to certification need to be assessed before they are published to ensure the client is not misled."

In the UK there was a classic case of an unaccredited certification body being taken to court because the claims of ISO 9001 compliance by one of the companies they "certified" were found by a customer to be false as the system did not meet the standard. I will see if I can dig out an official case study to post here as I don't want to name names - walls have lawyers with ears.