ISO 9001 News Tirelessly Improving the Brand Integrity of ISO 9001 - Working Group under ISO TC 176

[outdoorsNW]

Sidney,

Please explain your last post. Are you saying you asked for the results to be made public but the committee refused?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

No. I did not ask anything because I know how clickish these groups are, as they tend to think only they have the answers. But, I would think that, if the convenor of the group was really serious about stakeholder feedback, some of the information would be transparently shared.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The discussion at LinkedIn, available @ Sign Up | LinkedIn had a recent reply from @Paul Simpson.

 

[Mike S.]

Accredited certification of management systems was intended to provide confidence to relevant interested parties in the global supply chain. It has been, however and unfortunately, devalued, commoditized and trivialized. It has become an “undeniable right”. You want it? you’ve got it. Just pay. No big deal.

So, instead of assurance and confidence, we end up with “certificates” and “no big deals”.

I have mixed feeling on this.

Sometimes I think the whole concept of QMS standards like ISO9001 and what they could accomplish was oversold from the start. Each customer has certain unique needs, each supplier has unique challenges. How much can we really expect from a pre-announced external audit conducted over a few days on a small sample of stuff?

If we make it even harder and more expensive to get a cert, how many unintended consequences will that trigger, like causing many companies to scrap the standard altogether, or just become more adept at hiding stuff?

If I have a new potential critical supplier and I really care about what they send me, I have to go visit them myself. I just can't delegate that responsibility.

 

[Peter Fraser]

The discussion at LinkedIn, available @ Sign Up | LinkedIn had a recent reply from @Paul Simpson.

View attachment 26533​

I am afraid that this response confirms that there is a real issue which is not being recognised. ISO has for some time been trying to turn 9001 into a "business management" standard when:

i) it can't get fundamental concepts and definitions defined sensibly or applied consistently (such as "management system"- they are currently debating whether a comma will transform a flawed definition into something that makes sense)​

ii) it is trying do achieve this by means of a collection of committees and subcommittees populated by a random(?) collection of people who are by no means all "experts" as claimed by ISO​

iii) whatever document is produced has to be capable of translation into a host of other languages, which causes its own problems​

iv) no-one has actually asked them to do so.​

As I understand it from cowboy films on TV, branding is something that you do to a steer so that you can get it back when it runs off - this steer has gone some way in the wrong direction...

 

[Sidney Vianna]

If I have a new potential critical supplier and I really care about what they send me, I have to go visit them myself. I just can't delegate that responsibility.

Supplier certification to a QMS standard should never be seen as the "silver bullet", but, and instead, a important component of supplier oversight. Further, in this day and age of globalized supply chains, supplier audits have it's own set of challenges.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I am afraid that this response confirms that there is a real issue which is not being recognised. ISO has for some time been trying to turn 9001 into a "business management" standard when:
i) it can't get fundamental concepts and definitions defined sensibly or applied consistently (such as "management system"- they are currently debating whether a comma will transform a flawed definition into something that makes sense)
ii) it is trying do achieve this by means of a collection of committees and subcommittees populated by a random(?) collection of people who are by no means all "experts" as claimed by ISO

I share your concerns, Peter.

Just the fact that the TC176 agreed to create such WG shows they acknowledge the fact that there is a problem with the "integrity" surrounding ISO 9001. Because their deliberations are not transparent (up til now, at least), we don't know if they are focusing on the standard itself, the associated certification system built around it, or both. Normally, the people who participate in these working groups do so, volunteering their time, but, as they typically have day jobs, the amount of effort they can really dedicate to an herculean task such as "restoring the brand integrity of ISO's best seller" is normally, not enough. As seen in the LinkedIn discussion, some of the answers being proposed are to develop "7 Position Papers". Is that serious? Does anyone REALLY believe that you can improve the brand integrity of ISO 9001 by........developing papers? It seems to be one of those cases where the "solution" is dictated by the limitation of the tools. A toothless solution, nevertheless.

Meanwhile, we just saw a precipitous drop of ISO 9001 certificates in their latest ISO Survey, and their attempt to ignore the fact goes directly against the Evidence-based decision making QMP principle. Groupthink* syndrome?

*Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.

 

[Marc]

ISO 9001 has come a long way from its original intention.

 

[Peter Fraser]

Agreed, Marc.

ISO 9001 has come a long way from its original intention.

<This was achieved by combining the process approach with risk-based thinking, and employing the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle at all levels in the organization.[43] > But... this is rubbish!
The process approach is stated as something that can have benefits - it is NOT a requirement.
PDCA is NOT a requirement - it is mentioned as something that might be useful.
So why do people not read the words in the standard?

 

[Mike S.]

The process approach is not a requirement????

Section 4 is largely saying in a lot of words "use the process approach" and section 5 requires leadership to promote the process approach.