Self Proclamation of ISO 9001 Certification and Compliance

[Paul Simpson]

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.

Hi, Dave. I understand your point and am sure that a thorough audit of purchasing would see a certificate from anything other than an accredited 3rd party as a non compliance but they do slip through the net.

I know of a few examples of an accredited CB issuing unaccredited TS certs (because the SMMT rigorously restricts access to CBs in the UK - restraint of trade? Another thread) and the registered company has been sending these to their Tier 1 customer for years without a query.

Anyone can self declare to TS - the theory is that these are not accepted, the practice is that they often are!

 

[Old Quality Gal]

"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. "

A couple of quick points in response to a couple of the posts.
1.) Motorola is a client of mine and they I understand how their system works. They ultimately do have an accreditation registrar that audits their assessor training program, assessment audit process, key metric and continual improvement process and some other key points.
Motorola in turn has their own internal guidance document they use as the foundation for their quality system. This document exceeds the requirements of ISO 9001:2000 in specificity of content.
They still have someone looking over their shoulder even though it is at a higher level.
2.) The client in question here wants to claim certification not compliance., that is my issue. I have no issue with them saying we have the following QSM in place that is in accordance with and compliant to ISO 9001:2000. It is very different to state in advertising etc that they are certified to ISO 9001:2000. That seriously concerns me and I have told them so.
I lump this into the same category as companies who certify just their call center in order to make a certification claim in print for Marketing.
We are a software development company and the scope of our registration includes every process and service we offer including hosting and customization. None of our competitors have anything more than their call centers registered. That particularly irritates me since we are all compliance management software providers.
In summation the vast majority of my clients are wonderful ethical companies just trying to do things better, faster, smarter. These folks have a slyness about them I find disconcerting. I was very clear in my response to her that I do not endorse their plan of action and would be disappointed if they settle on the use of the word "certified". I also told her management smart customers will smell a rat as soon as they read the claim.
I will let you all know what they finally decide to do. Again thanks for all the input!

 

[Jim Wynne]

The client in question here wants to claim certification not compliance.

Without disclosing that it's self certification?

 

[Coury Ferguson]

Without disclosing that it's self certification?

My point exactly!!

 

[Old Quality Gal]

Without disclosing that it's self certification?

Jim I read their proposed statement and it does not state it is self certification nor does it state it is 2nd or 3rd party certification. It just says they are an ISO 9001:2000 certified company. That is some of the slyness I said makes me uncomfortable with these guys.
Smart customers will ask who their registrar is and I assume they will then fess up to self certification.
Luckily I am not acting as a consultant for them, merely a software provider that they are trying to scam for additional free consulting.

 

[BradM]

Very intriguing topic.

In my world, a calibration is verification of an instrument/device against a N.I.S.T. (or other equivalent body) standard, with a pass/ fail assessment. If it's not traceable, it's not a calibration. If it's not pass/fail, it's not a calibration. It can be a number of other things, but not a calibration.

Words and phrases mean things, otherwise they would be no big deal. It was very difficult for me to obtain my degree and my Certification as a quality engineer. I would like for those who call themselves these things to have undergone roughly my equivalent. Those that call themselves these things (I have a degree and I am a certified quality engineer) and have not gone through them are exercising some degree of deception. Punishment of some sort should be reaped upon their head.

How in the world can you self-claim compliance? If you were able to inspect your own car, do you think it would ever fail?

Claims of compliance, without some level of verification/audit, are meaningless. The quality of a product to a customer is, as Akio taught me, good enough or not. If a customer cares that much about someone’s quality program, they should get in there and audit them.

Sorry, I smell a foul rat. Too many companies, and too many hard-working quality practitioners have spent some long nights preparing for successful audits. Yes, because it’s the right thing to do, but also because that paper means something.

With my own calibration company, I had a quality system that was quite good, and based on my knowledge of ISO, would have no problem passing. I did not get the registration because I did not need it (plus could not afford it). I never made any assertions towards my program being compliant this or that. I let it speak for itself. It was audited against several industries, problems were found and corrected, and then stood to satisfy the customer.

The details surrounding the OP are not entirely clear (as stated correctly by others) but in my reading of the OP, I give it a big thumbs-down.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Jim I read their proposed statement and it does not state it is self certification nor does it state it is 2nd or 3rd party certification. It just says they are an ISO 9001:2000 certified company. That is some of the slyness I said makes me uncomfortable with these guys.

Thanks for the clarification. Your discomfort is understandable, because once that door is open, there's no telling what might try to crawl through it.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Words and phrases mean things, otherwise they would be no big deal. It was very difficult for me to obtain my degree and my Certification as a quality engineer. I would like for those who call themselves these things to have undergone roughly my equivalent. Those that call themselves these things (I have a degree and I am a certified quality engineer) and have not gone through them are exercising some degree of deception. Punishment of some sort should be reaped upon their head.

I agree that anyone who deliberately misrepresents his qualifications should be harshly dealt with. In many states it's illegal to use the word "engineer" in describing oneself professionally unless certain academic (and other) requirements have been met. On the other hand, I have no degree and no certification, but my own personal educational and professional development is such that my capabilities exceed those of many people with advanced degrees and multiple ASQ certifications. Not bragging, just stating a fact. My job title doesn't include the word "engineer" but my job description (and my compensation, presumably) is identical to that of people whose titles do. It's the work that matters, not what you call the work.

How in the world can you self-claim compliance? If you were able to inspect your own car, do you think it would ever fail?

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. Whether or not a company is duly certified/registered/consecrated has no logical bearing on its capabilities. There are compliant-but-not-registered companies that perform as well or better than their non-registered counterparts.

Claims of compliance, without some level of verification/audit, are meaningless. The quality of a product to a customer is, as Akio taught me, good enough or not. If a customer cares that much about someone’s quality program, they should get in there and audit them.

My own experience, and indeed all of the emprically-derived data available, indicate that audits of suppliers don't materially contribute to or reliably predict supplier performance. For all the jibba-jabba about audits and registration and surveys and looking over the shoulders of suppliers, the fact remains that past performance is the only reliable indicator of future performance. This means that the supplier qualification process needs more attention, and that it must be recognized that wrong choices will be made. Nearly all of the problems with suppliers emanate from poor initial choices and/or failure to act on the evidence when suppliers don't perform as expected. We need to spend less time trying to rehabilitate poor-performing suppliers and more time trying to find the ones that don't need to be rehabilitated.

Sorry, I smell a foul rat. Too many companies, and too many hard-working quality practitioners have spent some long nights preparing for successful audits.

Let's separate those companies who honestly claim compliance from those who do it with intent to deceive. I know of companies where hard-working professionals toiled conscientiously to bring their systems into compliance because they wanted to improve.

 

[BradM]

Jim,

Excellent job. Thank you for your time and your thoughts. I learn from all here.

I am not a haughty, snooty person, passing judgment among those based on degrees, titles, certifications, etc. My dad is the greatest man I know, and he has few of these petty things. It is his character and experience, upon which his credentials are based.

To be clear: my beef is with anyone (organization/individual) who claims they have something when they do not (your engineer point is an excellent one).
To me, self proclamation of certification is such.

As for my car analogy, let me take another stab, and see if you agree with my logic. Let us set aside whether the car is actually safe to drive (as setting aside whether an organization really has a good quality system), you want an inspection sticker to satisfy law enforcement. People want a certificate for customers/marketing (alas, Wes. B. poll on a piece of paper).

If you are doing these assessments yourself, you have no objectivity to assert compliance to any standard. So to me, they are worthless.

To the original thread, if you have a good quality system, you should not need the paper. If you want/need the paper, then step out and make the commitment.

 

[Coury Ferguson]

To the original thread, if you have a good quality system, you should not need the paper. If you want/need the paper, then step out and make the commitment.

I agree with you Brad.

If a company is making a statement to something and have developed and established a Quality Management System and can self proclaim that they meet the QMS standard, the next step would be to invest the $$$ in getting an accurate and official recognition, which would reflect to most companies under normal circumstances, they are committed to improve the Business Management System.