Should the billing process be part of ISO 9001:2008?

[Greg B]

I see that a lot of people agree with me that it should not be included but I would like to point out to those that say their current financial audits are just checking the dots on the i's and crosses on the t's are really simplifying the process (at least here in Aust). Financial audits have taken on a greater role and now audit the process. Our last audit identified that we carried far too much stock (Product and Spare), that our Stock taking techniques were inadequate and could cause 'double ups' in accounting and followed invoices from product to customer. They have been doing this for several years now and I can attest to a greater tolerance for them now than when everyone thought they just sat around counting pennies. I will not have the system then be audited or answer to ISO. the same as i don't let Environment or Safety fall under our umbrella also. When the world issues an all encompassing BUSINESS Standard that deals with whole of business (including maintenance) I will allow finance to fall within my realm. Push a better business appreciation rather than adding extra work for me.

 

[Joe Cruse]

I agree with your post wholeheartedly, Greg.

We had a similar experience with accounting and our external accounting auditing. This past cycle, especially, is helping us look at some business practices, and make improvements for the business (that will be showing up in the CI index of our QMS).

I also see no need for our QMS to include this area, when it is already being covered quite well in another way.

 

[JadeS]

We identified all Accounting functions, including billing/invoicing as support processes when mapping the processes. To not include them would have left an open loop. They are also identified throughout the 'Customer Oriented Processes'.

Jade

 

[Rick St]

We have decided to assess what we call "administrative quality." This would include pricing errors, order entry errors, etc. These are then worked the same way we work product quality issues. Administrative quality isn't defined by our QMS, but we think it falls under the customer satisfaction element of the standard.

 

[Denis9001 - 2007]

Billing is part of the business process and a common source of customer dissatification. So, if the standard is not to have any process gaps it should include billing. But it must be clear that it is not a financial audit. We don't care about the company accounts, just that the customer is billed correctly. Perhaps the customer-related processes section could be modified to cover this. After all the bill is in many cases what the law considers (I think) to be the "contract" between supplier and customer.

Really the standard should cover all business functions. That it doesn't directly handle areas like production equipment baffles me. But that's for another thread.

If a customer was overbilled and paid or the credit terms were wrong or invoices sent out late, the customer may be unhappy but would the financial auditor care or cover this. My ISP recently cut off my connection without payment reminder or disconnetion notice because 1 dollar was outstanding on a monthly bill from 3 months ago. I was hopping mad and if I find they made a mistake will give them another earbashing on the phone,

 

[Madfox]

Yes, and no...
...and "billing" goes both ways, getting paid and paying suppliers.

I don't believe in getting into the nitty-gritty financials, however management should be aware of:
a) billing (inbound/outbound) issues
b) billing performance (most are keenly aware of avg. outstanding A/R, but few regarding avg. outstanding A/P)

A close friend (with an NYSE-listed org) lost a HUGE account simply because their client's CFO got fed up with trying to get a correct bill.

When I'm asked about "process engineering" here's my example (true story, been to the company, know the salesperson):
A printing company had a client who had been with them for over 12 years. The client had started as a two-person company and now accounted for approx. 8% of the printer's revenue, and about 12% of the account manager's annual income (commission-based).

The client's founder/president still maintained the "up close and personal" relationship with the printer, literally paying the bills with his own business credit card. Well, he gets a call from someone in A/R who, very coldly, simply states "We're not accepting credit cards anymore, we will be sending you a credit reference form to establish a line of credit....blah, blah, blah."

What irked the client was being treated so rudely, and he wrote the printer's president notifying them that their relationship was over. The client's account manager and the sales manager had no idea the accounting dept. was implementing this change regarding credit card usage. The sales person had to be peeled off the ceiling!

A silo-oriented organization: "Congratulations to our accounting dept. for decreasing costs incurred from credit card transactions!" "Hey sales, what's your problem, your numbers are way off!"
Would this have happened in a process-oriented organization?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

A silo-oriented organization: "Congratulations to our accounting dept. for decreasing costs incurred from credit card transactions!" "Hey sales, what's your problem, your numbers are way off!"

Excellent example.

Would this have happened in a process-oriented organization?

I don't know, but obviously not in a customer-centric organization. Hey, gotta use new buzzwords...

 

[Rik Arkell - 2008]

Couldn't agree more. 'Finance' audit only covers the accuracy/fraud etc. They are not interested in whatthe customer thinks, only that everything 'stacks up' from a fiscal point of view. ISO looks further at issues affecting the customer - e.g. timliness of invoicing, accuracy and so on.

There is also the other softer issue - in omitting staff involved in invoicing what message are you delivering to them regarding qualitiy in their work?
Cheers,
Rik

Cheers,
Rik

 

[shawnann]

NO they shouldn't be apart of the ISO requirements.

1. Financial information for companies are private information.
2. The billing and receipt of payments has nothing to do with the quality of the work being performed by your company, in the matter of product.
3. There is no reason for an outside company to audit your financials of the business.
4. What next, auditing the employees for time off, sick days, etc.?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

NO they shouldn't be apart of the ISO requirements.

I think you mean a part

2. The billing and receipt of payments has nothing to do with the quality of the work being performed by your company, in the matter of product.

Your definition of quality is too narrow and inconsistent with the ISO 9000:2005 definition. Do you disagree that erroneous billing is one of the most common sources of customer dissatisfaction?