Jim, that's a totally cynical view in my experience! Sure, many companies here thought they'd be locked out of the EU - that was purely in their imagination - I know, I was there too! Many also saw it as a competitive edge over the competition, too. There weren't that many consultants back in those days, for a start and few CBs too! Indeed, of the people I came over with in 1992 - nearly all were not fully engaged as auditors for quite a few years, due to the sluggish growth in ISO registrations...
Jim, that's a totally cynical view in my experience! Sure, many companies here thought they'd be locked out of the EU - that was purely in their imagination - I know, I was there too! Many also saw it as a competitive edge over the competition, too. There weren't that many consultants back in those days, for a start and few CBs too! Indeed, of the people I came over with in 1992 - nearly all were not fully engaged as auditors for quite a few years, due to the sluggish growth in ISO registrations...
Not totally cynical, but cynical to be sure. Sometimes reality and pragmatism smell a lot like cynicism. With due and sincere respect to you and Helmut, most of the optimism and trumpeting of "value added" stuff comes from those who have a significant stake in selling registration and related services.
Helmut Jilling
Auditor / Consultant
Jim, we've gone round and round on this topic. We have a different point of view. My point of view is based on working with a couple hundred companies. I have reported what they told me, often in unguarded moments. It is further supported from what we all hear and see in industry magazine articles and other sources.
There are a million companies certified to ISO 9001. Early on, there was a belief that European customers would require it, and many of them did. There was an even bigger driver in the USA, when Detroit based automotive customer made it a requirement.
The reason many customers made it a requirement was the expectation that theiir sppliers would improve as a result. And, by and large, they did. That is not rewriting history, amigo, that is just stating it as it is.
Sure, some companies only wanted a certificate, they were required to do it by their customers. They spent the money and got a framed cert, and not much else. But, you can't seriously argue that all 1,000,000 of them only did it to get a cert, and don't seriously make an effort to use it daily to improve. 30 to 50% of them? Maybe, I'd give you that much. But the other half clearly try to work their systems and use them to the best of their ability.
When I work with 250 companies, 80-90% have put forth true effort to work theiir systems and apply what we are telling them. We work with them over the years and see the changes. They tell me how they are using their systems. They take pages of notes without anyone telling them they have to.
Or, maybe I am just a lucky auditor, and all my clients take this seriously, and the other 999,750 certified companies are just giving it lip service...
C'mon... That is not serious. That is a cynical point of view, and there is too little other than anecdotal observations to back it up.Companies fall into 3 categories - some really work their systems and take it seriously. Their performance clearly shows dramatic improvement, concurrent with their implementations.
The second group does put some effort forward, but have inconsistent buy-in, and somewhat reduced support from top management. These companies tend to see some definite improvement, but the correlation is less clear.
The 3rd group bought a certificate, do not understand it well, and do the minimum needed to keep the cert in force. They have little to show for it, but they get quote opportunities because they have a cert.
I feel sorry for the 3rd group, but it is a free country, and they are permitted to do that. However, it not fair nor statistically valid to take that 3rd group and extrapolate a viewpoint that paints the entire certified base of companies.
I agree with a lot of your posts, but on this one I have to agree with Andy. You have a cynical and biased point of view on this topic of "benefits of ISO," developed earlier on, and I think it seriously colors your perspective when it comes to certification. I think you have stopped looking for evidence to support a different conclusion.
Your view is your prerogative, but I don't think the collective history of 1,000,000 companies suppports your point of view. Maybe 25% of it is as poor as you describe. The rest perform better at many various levels.
Too bad for them, but it is their money.
Last edited:
J
JaneB
Helmut, such an excellent post. Thanks for both what you said and the clarity with which you said it.
That's what I've seen with all but a tiny handful of all the companies I've worked with too.
Fully agree; I'd make just the same observations over my many years consulting to many different organisations.
Not true at all! What about the clients who really get a lot of value from their certification? I learned of a situation recently, where a contract auditor had stopped working for a number of CBs and went with just one. The auditor's clients heard, of course, and nearly all asked to transfer. Of course, it's a big undertaking to switch supplier like this and, in spite of some pricing increases, just about all those clients were singing the praises of the value they got from their audits. Not because the auditor is easy - past audit reports are handed over in the transfer - but because these companies see them as opportunity to improve their systems. Not my words, Jim, their's!
Of course we 'trumpet' the value! To those coming to it new don't always know what to expect, after all, and while they do need a certificate, many want to know there's more to it than that...after all, it's a considerable out lay for some! Who's going to tell them? You or me?
T
True Position
Creating a robust quality system and paying some CB thousands to show compliance to some standard are different. One adds value, one is mostly there to placate customers.
If you take a narrow view, maybe.
A while ago, pre-ISO, I was a Supplier Quality Assurance Manager. I was responsible for the delivery performance of suppliers who had no clue about basic principles of quality planning, contract review and calibration. I had also to spend countless hours driving around the country - thank heavens it's only 600 miles long - visiting suppliers to see what they'd done about rejects etc. And then 3rd party audited ISO compliance came along...I'm happy I don't have that job in the USA and with suppliers in other countries...that's a benefit of ISO registration for supplier management!
Last edited:
T
tomvehoski
Why all the effort to make things easy for the auditor? Looks like I missed a lot of discussion over the weekend, but I didn't see anyone make a point about making documentation easy for the USER - the people in your organization that are supposed to be using it day to day. So what if the auditor has to take five extra minutes to realize that I combined 8.1, 8.2.1, 8.4 and 7.3.2 into one procedure called Objectives Management? If it saves 20 of my users five minutes each, I am 95 minutes of productivity ahead. It also saves me (Process Manager) time in the long run since it is one procedure to approve, store, manage, update, etc.
As an outsider (auditor, customer, consultant, whatever), if I see a company that has written its standard to the letter of ISO, it raises a big red flag to me that the organization only put the system in place for the certificate on the wall. If I see an organization that developed a system to match how they work, and then fit it to ISO/TS/AS/etc., I have more faith in their abilities.
As an outsider (auditor, customer, consultant, whatever), if I see a company that has written its standard to the letter of ISO, it raises a big red flag to me that the organization only put the system in place for the certificate on the wall. If I see an organization that developed a system to match how they work, and then fit it to ISO/TS/AS/etc., I have more faith in their abilities.
J
JaneB
How right you are.
Similar threads
