The more ISO 9000:2000 registered companies the better?

[Anton Ovsianko]

The more registered companies the better?

Dear all,

'Lenin planned to build kommunism in one separate country'. Cruel and failing experiment...

I wonder if it is possible to develop an efficient and effective quality assurance system (say... complying to ISO 9001:2000) within one separate company? (while it's suppliers, customers etc. do not bother to do the same)

Are there interrelations between the number (rate) of registered companies in an industry and the total positive (negative) effect of ISO 9001 use? (please, vote in the poll)

The same might go for any other business standards mentioned in these forums.

Yours

Anton

 

[Anton Ovsianko]

Hey Jim,

You want to say that registration is not at all corresponding with the effictiveness or efficiency of the QAS? Are really so sceptic about that?


regards,

Anton

 

[Anton Ovsianko]

Nice comments, putting my feet to the ground again.

However, we can look at the problem at a bit different angle )that is actually what I meant posting this.

Whether an organization improves its quality being registered or before registration is a question of a registrar conscience.
At the same time i hold that any organization seeks some benefits taking a decision to get registered (or simply developing a QAS). These benefits may originate from better quality, or from better sales or margin through complying the 'bureaucratic requirements' of clients. It would make a difference from the point of view of quality management and no difference from the point of view of marketing and strategy.
Speaking about positivew effect I meant the latter point of view - the effect for business in general calculated as surplus profit (or loss). Is it somehow dependent on the level of penetration of QA ideas or registrations in the industry? From your point of view...

regards,

Anton

 

[M Greenaway]

Hi Anton

I guess the simple answer would be yes, if your competitors are also operating an effective QMS then theoretically the impact of improving your own will be less than if they had no QMS.

Note I am not talking about ISO9001 certification, but an effective QMS (hopefully go hand in hand, but not necessarily so).

If customers truly place orders with companies that provide quality products/services then the more companies that offer similar levels of quality product/service the less the QMS makes a difference, it becomes almost necessary for shear survival.

 

[Craig H.]

Anton:

I guess I have a different, more cynical, view. As the proliferation of certificates increases, registration becomes more like a commodity. As this occurs, the market does not reward a company for being certified.

At the same time, the price-driven emphasis regains strength, pretty much putting us back where we started. I wish that at least we could say that the lowest total-cost emphasis returns, but IMHO usually that is not the truth.

If increased certification within a vertical industrial sector is due to companies just wanting a certificate to hang, little will improve. If, however, the companies are working toward real improvement, things will, of course, improve.

Craig

 

[Aaron Lupo]

Jim Wade said:

Yep.

I guess that's why BSI now offer ISO 9004 certificates.

rgds Jim

Is that so? I didn't think 9004 was auditable how can the offer certificates and what accreditation body is allowing this?

 

[M Greenaway]

ISO

These 'certificates' to ISO9004 will not be accredited certificates, or a certificate claiming 'compliance'. They are a document for your wall that kinda says that BSi have assessed your company against ISO9004 for business excellence (or words to that effect). There will be no UKAS logo's anywhere - I believe.

 

[energy]

Weaker

I'm only one of two that say weaker. Craig seems to share that view. The more companies that are registered, just waters down the significance of being certified. Particularly, when they still ship junk. I've handled CAR's for at least three suppliers that proudly displayed their ISO badge on all their documentation. It's just the fad of the times. They responded no quicker than those that didn't have the badge and I never saw any attempts at "Proactive" Customer Satisfaction. The common remark that I heard from Shipping & Receiving and the Managers waiting for the ISO Company's product, was "Another example of ISO?". Probably why we failed to get all the personnel on board. They saw no measurable improvement. Nothing they could see, touch or feel. Kind of like religion. You have to believe!

 

[Sam]

Anton,
I voted no. Reason being that no program, quality or otherwise will work when dictated by someone else. Your opening statement provides a base for this reasoniong.

 

[db]

The main problem I see is that many companies REQUIRE their suppliers to become registered. This makes places the focus on the "flag", not on the benefits. So, the minimum effort to maintain the the registration is all the companies care about.

If ISO/QS/TS/Whatever were strictly voluntary, and every company seeking registration did so for the benefits of an effective QMS, then the more companies registered, the better. However, we live in a real world. There are significant numbers of organizations that achieve registration under false motives/pretenses. The result is the more companies that are registered, the less effect registration has.

In my perfect world, two significant changes would be enacted. First, registration would be absolutely voluntary. Second, registered companies would be prohibited from telling anyone they achieved registration. This way we would be assured, organizations become registered for the right reasons.

edited for spelling -db