Paul Simpson
Trusted Information Resource
In many of the threads there is general discussion about the problems of registration to ISO 9001.2000. I am interested in what people think is the main cause of this.
What is the root cause of problems with registration to ISO 9001
- Thread starter Paul Simpson
- Start date
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
C
chergh - 2008
I would say all the above points are valid, I voted for the standard though. Inconsistency between auditors is a big problem as well, the difference between a BSI auditor, who seem to be stuck in the 1994 revision, and LRQA is huge. I'm not sure if the registrar wanting the money is such a big issue in the UK? and certainly registered companies not having the right attitude is a big problem as well.
The process of registration seems to have become a process of ticking off each clause and subclause of the standard rather than looking at the management system as a whole.
In my previous job I helped maintain a "certificate on the wall" system for three years with only 1 minor nonconformance ever being raised, despite me delibratley showing the registrar a series of repeated NC's each with it's own equally ineffecteive CA. He just marked this down as being compliant.
In my current job we are aiming to become registered in september. One issue I currently have is control of external documents. Our current process works well and people find it easy to use however it is definitley NOT compliant to the standard. I now have to go mess around with this process because we want to become registered despite that being non compliant in this area would not IMO adversely affect the overall management system.
The process of registration seems to have become a process of ticking off each clause and subclause of the standard rather than looking at the management system as a whole.
In my previous job I helped maintain a "certificate on the wall" system for three years with only 1 minor nonconformance ever being raised, despite me delibratley showing the registrar a series of repeated NC's each with it's own equally ineffecteive CA. He just marked this down as being compliant.
In my current job we are aiming to become registered in september. One issue I currently have is control of external documents. Our current process works well and people find it easy to use however it is definitley NOT compliant to the standard. I now have to go mess around with this process because we want to become registered despite that being non compliant in this area would not IMO adversely affect the overall management system.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
Aaron Lupo
My vote was for companies don't have the right attitude. I have seen it time and time again where there are just going thru the motions, they do as little as they have to in order to get thier certificate. You can see it when you do the survillance audits, you notice a lot of things being completed just prior to their audits. You can raise major/minor N/C's but there is not enough evidence to warrant a suspension of their registration, even if you did they would just sign on with another registrar that is willing to push the cert. thru for them. In reality both (certified companies and registrars) are to blame, on one hand you have certian registrars that are saying he if we don't give them the cert. someone else will so we may as well get the money for it and on the other hand you have companies that know that they can go to certian registrars to get their cert. no matter what their system is like. JMO
Paul Simpson
Trusted Information Resource
My vote
FWIW I voted for the bottom three. Sweeping generalizations, I know but:
On a more positive note I believe all three above are in a minority and the vast majority of auditors, certification bodies and organizations approach ISO and registration with the right attitude. Unfortunately good news doesn't make headlines.
FWIW I voted for the bottom three. Sweeping generalizations, I know but:
- there are auditors out there that don't do a good job and they either have no idea what harm they are doing by degrading the process or they don't care.
- there are certification bodies (including those who hold accreditation) who are more interested in satisfying their bean counters in the short term than in dealing with the process and getting rid of the "cash cow" auditors (above).
- there are companies out there who have systems that don't meet the spirit of the standard but are more interested in arguing with the auditor and scoring points. So long as they keep the certificate on the wall - job done
On a more positive note I believe all three above are in a minority and the vast majority of auditors, certification bodies and organizations approach ISO and registration with the right attitude. Unfortunately good news doesn't make headlines.
M
michelle8075
That's a loaded question with many "correct answers". But, I voted that companies don't have the right attitude. I am expecially battling Management (the ones who said we HAVE to be ISO). I sent in our Quality Manual for review and wanted to send in the procedures in the Gap Analysis. I can't even do that. I have been waiting for answers on some of these procedures / work instructions since FEBRUARY! I have e-mailed, brought it up in SEVERAL meetings, and even forward a weekly progress report on ISO on these issues. Still Nothing. I guess I am venting here, but it seems to be a common complaint. ISO WORKS! but it's the "driver" who isn't doing what they have to do and winding up in wrecks!
I voted for number 4, but all four reasons play as part of the system of why ISO 9000 is flawed.
The true root causes, I believe, are that senior managers of companies want an "instant pudding" approach (a quick fix that someone else can do for them), and a banner to fly in front of their plant saying "all is well here".
Style over substance, looking good is better than being good . . .
And we have a workforce of consultants more than willing to give these senior managers what they want, rather than what they need, and willing to take as much $$$ as they can in the process.
The true root causes, I believe, are that senior managers of companies want an "instant pudding" approach (a quick fix that someone else can do for them), and a banner to fly in front of their plant saying "all is well here".
Style over substance, looking good is better than being good . . .
And we have a workforce of consultants more than willing to give these senior managers what they want, rather than what they need, and willing to take as much $$$ as they can in the process.
T
Totumfrog
I think it is because the standard is flawed. There is inconsistancy between auditors because the standard isn't defined well enough. There are Registars more interested in income than the quality of the audits because the standard allows it. And the registered companies don't have the right attitude to the registration process because the standard doesn't require it. Thus, IMO, the standard is flawed. As many of us know, a company can pass an audit and get their certificate on the wall without truly being worthy. They may be compliant but they may not necessarily be any better than they were before they were compliant. The standard is too vague. Too many interpretations and consistantly more questions than answers. Please don't get me wrong, I think ISO is important but I simply see it as a continuous improvement tool itself.
S
SailorWard
I work for a large corporation that has mandated ISO 9001 registration for many of the operating divisions. I'm in one of those divisions and lead the ISO "process." We registered because we were told to not because our division management wants us to or is really trying to get anything out of it.
Yes, there are a couple managers that really believe--or would like to really believe if they had time to do so. But, overall. . . . nadda.
And our certificate hangs in prominent display in the Trophy Case.
Yes, there are a couple managers that really believe--or would like to really believe if they had time to do so. But, overall. . . . nadda.
And our certificate hangs in prominent display in the Trophy Case.
Working in a small company that is going through the ISO process, I would have to say that that ISO 9001:2000 is flawed when it comes to implementing it into a small businesses. We were originally asked to get ISO certified by our customer, but management saw a great opportunity to implement a solid QMS as well.
Our quality system is supported by management ( They have stated time and time again we want a system that works and not just a cert), their involved in every aspect of the QMS from approving documents to actually giving training, but the implementation cost, man hours, training are hard on a small business.
Our certification partner is great and is willing to work with us to ensure we're have a solid ISO system in place as well, our pre-assessment auditor is well versed in ISO 9001:2000 and looks at the system to ensure it's working based on objective evidence.
I think that someone should write an ISO standard for small businesses maybe title it: Mini-ISO 9001:2000
Our quality system is supported by management ( They have stated time and time again we want a system that works and not just a cert), their involved in every aspect of the QMS from approving documents to actually giving training, but the implementation cost, man hours, training are hard on a small business.
Our certification partner is great and is willing to work with us to ensure we're have a solid ISO system in place as well, our pre-assessment auditor is well versed in ISO 9001:2000 and looks at the system to ensure it's working based on objective evidence.
I think that someone should write an ISO standard for small businesses maybe title it: Mini-ISO 9001:2000
Last edited:
A
Aaron Lupo
Allen M. said:Working in a small company that is going through the ISO process, I would have to say that that ISO 9001:2000 is flawed when it comes to implementing it into a small businesses. We were originally asked to get ISO certified by our customer, but management saw a great opportunity to implement a solid QMS as well.
Our quality system is supported by management ( They have stated time and time again we want a system that works and not just a cert), their involved in every aspect of the QMS from approving documents to actually giving training, but the implementation cost, man hours, training are hard on a small business.
Our certification partner is great and is willing to work with us to ensure we're have a solid ISO system in place as well, our pre-assessment auditor is well versed in ISO 9001:2000 and looks at the system to ensure it's working based on objective evidence.
I think that someone should write an ISO standard for small businesses maybe title it: Mini-ISO 9001:2000
What exactly about the current ISO 9001 standard is it that does not work for a small company such as yours?
Similar threads
