I agree. ISO's business model promotes some irrelevant standardization efforts. ISO 37301 - Compliance management systems – Requirements with guidance for use
ISO 9001 News Tirelessly Improving the Brand Integrity of ISO 9001 - Working Group under ISO TC 176
- Thread starter Sidney Vianna
- Start date
Paul Simpson
Trusted Information Resource
This project is part of some work I did in the Brand Integrity Group (TC176/TG02) and resulted in this LinkedIn article.
A glacial pace...........before climate change.....
Thanks for noticing it, Paul. As mentioned already, I have no doubt about the good intentions of the people working in that group, but the pace of deliberation and transparency of the work is atrocious.
ISO, as an organization, seems to be utterly amateurish. The (relative) few people who live and work for ISO in Switzerland apparently behave as working for a state owned enterprise and don't feel the need to compete and react in the competitive landscape of XXI business. Imagine, for example, if you were Apple and the iPhone were losing market share and losing it's appeal in the marketplace for 4 years straight. You decide to support the creation of a "working group", give them a cubicle in the basement and let them run the "iPhone Brand Integrity Revitalization Project" for years on end with no supervision, no resources, no interest by leadership, etc...Imagine you were the mighty VW group and the Golf sales has stagnated for 4 years for lack of consumer interest and you institute the "VW Golf Brand Integrity Revitalization Project" the same way Apple does with their (fictional) counterpart.
Obviously you CAN'T imagine that happening, isn't it? Simply because the leadership of Apple and VW are not stupid, derelict nor disengaged of their stakeholders. They would NEVER let their sales flagship products being mismanaged so poorly. Heads would roll in a short amount of time. Now, look at how ISO manages (?) the group involved with the brand integrity of it's (by far) best selling product of all times; the standard that put ISO on the map of the corporate world in the last 3 decades; the standard that led the way to the recognition of the importance of Management System standards in world trade. The contrast on how ISO (mis)manages this group versus how a real commercial enterprise would do is STAGGERING. No resources, no transparency, no public updates, no commitments, no leadership involvement....nada....zero....absolute vacuum. Of course, all of that might be just me having high, undeserved, expectations about ISO and it's best selling product ISO 9001. Maybe the problem is me. I am grumpy, I guess. To make it official, I just ordered this shirt.
Paul Simpson
Trusted Information Resource
Hi, Sidney. You can't necessarily blame ISO in Switzerland for the work of individual technical committees (TC) and the working groups (WG) and task groups (TG) that they establish. I'm not going into the details of ISO TC 176 TG 02 (Brand Integrity) as it's not fair. Any comments I make could be seen as a criticism of the group, of individuals within it or of others in TC 176 and elsewhere.
Thanks for noticing it, Paul. As mentioned already, I have no doubt about the good intentions of the people working in that group, but the pace of deliberation and transparency of the work is atrocious.
ISO, as an organization, seems to be utterly amateurish. The (relative) few people who live and work for ISO in Switzerland apparently behave as working for a state owned enterprise and don't feel the need to compete and react in the competitive landscape of XXI business. Imagine, for example, if you were Apple and the iPhone were losing market share and losing it's appeal in the marketplace for 4 years straight. You decide to support the creation of a "working group", give them a cubicle in the basement and let them run the "iPhone Brand Integrity Revitalization Project" for years on end with no supervision, no resources, no interest by leadership, etc...Imagine you were the mighty VW group and the Golf sales has stagnated for 4 years for lack of consumer interest and you institute the "VW Golf Brand Integrity Revitalization Project" the same way Apple does with their (fictional) counterpart.
Obviously you CAN'T imagine that happening, isn't it? Simply because the leadership of Apple and VW are not stupid, derelict nor disengaged of their stakeholders. They would NEVER let their sales flagship products being mismanaged so poorly. Heads would roll in a short amount of time. Now, look at how ISO manages (?) the group involved with the brand integrity of it's (by far) best selling product of all times; the standard that put ISO on the map of the corporate world in the last 3 decades; the standard that led the way to the recognition of the importance of Management System standards in world trade. The contrast on how ISO (mis)manages this group versus how a real commercial enterprise would do is STAGGERING. No resources, no transparency, no public updates, no commitments, no leadership involvement....nada....zero....absolute vacuum. Of course, all of that might be just me having high, undeserved, expectations about ISO and it's best selling product ISO 9001. Maybe the problem is me. I am grumpy, I guess. To make it official, I just ordered this shirt.
To your comparison with VW and Apple, these are not equivalent. I presume when you are talking about market share you are talking about the ISO survey? If it is to do with sales of the standard (ISO's 'product') then I have no information about how well it is performing.
Regarding certification of QMSs to ISO 9001 then this is not ISO's product. The standard is one component of a certified QMS. There are many other components that TG 02 has identified including consultants, training organisations, quality professionals, auditors, CBs, ABs, IAF etc. ISO has zero control in many of those areas and can only hope to influence. I'll welcome any thoughts on how ISO can do this. Perhaps in a separate thread (or threads).
Using your examples, the ISO survey results are more aligned with an assessment of how effective mobile phone communications are for iPhone users - as it brings in the phone users and service providers.
For the VW example, the equivalent would be on the journeys undertaken in a VW vehicle as this brings in the driver, the infrastructure provider, other road users etc., etc.
The point here is that the ISO 9001 standard is one piece of a big jigsaw. Back to your point about the survey. If we want to use the number of certificates as a measure of 'market share' and/or quality then I'd suggest there may be some improvements in our hands within TC 176 with 9001 and TS 9002 but the majority of actions relate to influencing the other actors.
So, what I take away from your post is: the standard has no inherent problems and all the problems arise from bad actors in the implementation, training and conformity assessment sectors. Nevertheless the group was established under a SC involved with standards development. Why? Why isn’t this group under CASCO? Why isn’t this group titled ISO 9001 certification integrity think tank?
The fact the group was established signifies there’s recognition of a significant problem. And the problems are of global reach. Still, the group is as transparent as a lump of coal.
as for the ISO organization, you know as well as I do they rode the 9001 certification phenomenon wave, putting them on the map. If they are not more interested nor aware of what is surrounding their best selling product they are dysfunctional in ways I could not realize.
Paul Simpson
Trusted Information Resource
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, @Sidney Vianna in that I didn't specifically list ISO and TC 176 on the shortlist of 'actors' I listed under 'including'. For the avoidance of doubt, we are on the list and are happy to look at the text of ISO 9001 and all the supporting standards if it helps. I'm still waiting for examples of 9001 requirements that aren't clear. If I agree with any I'll take them to TG 02. Even if I don't people can take them up through their national standards bodies.
As with all things, with finite resources you focus on the ones that will give you the most bang for your buck. Everyone won't agree with our priorities (heck, even I don't agree with them all) but we are working through them.
CASCO is working with Brand Integrity on some of its concerns. IMHO the problem isn't with CASCO and the 17021 series of standards, though. The problem is with the use of 17021 by CBs and of 17011 by ABs. I seem to remember that was your position once.
I don't agree with your point about ISO riding any waves or a lack of interest in ISO 9001. As I have mentioned, they and we (as the TC with responsibility for ISO 9001) have limited authority and are looking to influence those who are responsible for the delivery of QMS certification .
There are multiple culprits involved here, but in my estimation (and I have only been saying that for the last 20 years, right here, at this forum) the biggest root cause for the ISO 9001 integrity erosion is the stupid commoditization of certification. ISO, IAF, AB's, CB's, training organizations, consultants, etc....ALL benefitted commercially from the certification frenzy. Confidence in the process took a back seat to the mind boggling drive to certify as many systems as possible. So much so that large stakeholders such as the Automotive, Aerospace, Medical Device and Telecommunication Industries (among others) implemented many other mechanisms, including standard augmentations, to bring back some level of confidence to the certification process.
ISO, without a question, benefitted from the certification frenzy and helped it's promotion. An ISO 9000 publication, ISO 9000 News - see below helped promoting the idea of ISO 9000 for the masses. The commoditization drive led to trivialization of dumbing down of all involved, as already covered in this forum, many times.
Paul Simpson
Trusted Information Resource
So it seems as if we are on the same page, after all, Sidney.There are multiple culprits involved here, but in my estimation (and I have only been saying that for the last 20 years, right here, at this forum) the biggest root cause for the ISO 9001 integrity erosion is the stupid commoditization of certification. ISO, IAF, AB's, CB's, training organizations, consultants, etc....ALL benefitted commercially from the certification frenzy. Confidence in the process took a back seat to the mind boggling drive to certify as many systems as possible. So much so that large stakeholders such as the Automotive, Aerospace, Medical Device and Telecommunication Industries (among others) implemented many other mechanisms, including standard augmentations, to bring back some level of confidence to the certification process.
ISO, without a question, benefitted from the certification frenzy and helped it's promotion. An ISO 9000 publication, ISO 9000 News - see below helped promoting the idea of ISO 9000 for the masses. The commoditization drive led to trivialization of dumbing down of all involved, as already covered in this forum, many times.
As a general point, ISO 9001 has to be applicable to organisations of all shapes and sizes. There is nothing to stop 'masses' of organisations from becoming certified. The more certification becomes commoditised the less value it has and hence the less appeal it has.
