Should customers influence a supplier's registrar selection?

[Ironcountry]

I voted yes with a asterisk.
Customer's influence should only go as far as to make sure that suppliers consider whether the registrar is legit not who the registrar is.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I voted yes with a asterisk.
Customer's influence should only go as far as to make sure that suppliers consider whether the registrar is legit not who the registrar is.

Thank you. By "legit", I understand that you mean the registrar has a "proper" accreditation, derived from an IAF accreditation body.

While I fully agree that is a good start, to think that, by being properly accredited is some kind of assurance of the registrar's competence, is akin to think that every "properly" ISO 9001 certified supplier is capable of delivering customer satisfaction.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

It seems to me that the poll results and majority of opinions expressed against customers influencing a supplier's selection process for a registrar has a lot to do with the fact that most people participating in this discussion find themselves in the receiving end of the mandate, i.e., being told by customers that they need to be certified.

For those who are in a position of mandating certification to their suppliers, the reaction is the opposite. Because, if they are going to rely on a certificate as a component of their supplier's capability, the certificate itself must be issued by a trustworthy source.

So, where you stand (customer or supplier) most definitely affects how you would answer this question.

From the comments in this thread, a lot of people seem to have similar concerns. Customers sometimes try to influence the CBs, and the opinions or directives they make are often off the mark, or way more rigid than is beneficial. Thus, it can be assumed that customers may likely just recommend a CB that is "Big, Bad and Ugly." Because, as everyone knows, you have to beat up suppliers. Or, as I have seen happen, the CB chosen by the customer only went through the exercise and provided no value other than a cert. We all have stories of some of the stupid things customers are capable of.

On the other hand, customers are legitimately concerned that some CBs are not doing valid work, and some suppliers select them just to get through audits easier. That is also a valid concern because the customer is not properly represented.

I think the best answer still remains that customers, suppliers and accreditation bodies need to support and award the CBs and auditors doing good work, and drive the bad guys hard. They seem to ignore the bad guys and squeeze the good ones, instead.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

They seem to ignore the bad guys and squeeze the good ones, instead.

What do you mean by "bad guys"? The unaccredited or pseudo-accredited registrars? If so, they are outside of the accreditation bodies jurisdiction. As for customer and suppliers unintentionally promoting less than credible certification, there is a lot of ignorance out there. Many organizations that mandate suppliers to be ISO 9001 certified seem to be happy with a fancily worded piece of paper, with some official-looking logos on it, never questioning the substance behind that certificate, such as scope of certification, validity period, exclusions, etc...

For the "good guys" to win, customers and suppliers need to be much better educated in the management system accredited conformity assessment process.

Their ignorance is easily preyed upon.

 

[ralphsulser]

I think this is why automotive went from QS9000 to TS16949, and why Ford has Q1 requirements.

 

[Jason PCSwitches]

Most organizations attain ISO 9001 (AS9100/TS-16949/TL-9000, etc...) certification to satisfy a customer requirement.

Realizing the tremendous disparity in the business model of Certification Bodies (albeit most are accredited to 17021), some people believe that certificates issued by different CB's bring different levels of confidence.

Since the actual users of the ISO 9001 certificate is not the registrant, but, in reality, their customers, should customers influence the decision of their supplier's certification body?

I think suggestions are ok, but being required to carry a particular CB is not prudent for many reasons. Mainly, it can open the door for bias and, to some extent monopolies.

I do feel that there is a confidence factor with CB's however. While it is the supplier who maintains the QMS, certain CB's do not hold suppliers to the same degree of requirements as others. While this may be hard to swallow for some, it is the truth. Some CB's are more stringent than others. Just like every other aspect of life, people will only give you as much as you expect them too. If a CB lets suppliers get by, then thats exactly what they will do, just keep the plaque on the wall, nothing more nothing less.

 

[nells]

I voted yes, my only condition being that the registrar be accredited.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I voted yes, my only condition being that the registrar be accredited.

By an IAF AB member? Pseudo-accreditations abound out there....

 

[nells]

In Canada, it is the Canadian Standards Council.

 

[MIREGMGR]

In the early days of our involvement with ISO 13485, before I was assigned to regulatory issues, we were working with NB "X". I think that business relationship evolved from our owner knowing someone who used "X". We didn't know what we were doing in regard to NB selection or anything else, but things were going fine.

At some point in the course of business, a friendly off-hours discussion ensued with a regulatory specialist from one of our largest customers. We were surprised to learn that, at least in this person's view, "X" was reputed to be capable, but "easy".

He had no problem with that. Nonetheless this caused us to inquire among other contacts to corroborate the information, and subsequently to change to NB "Y", which was generally reputed to be "hard". The motivation on our part was to maximize the perception that we were serious about our compliance stance.

That's a form of customer influence.