Why re-up ISO9001? Why continue registration?

[AndyN]

All interesting. One could take the majority of the answers and say that ISO 9k is a means to show conformity, but should not be a long term solution. In other words, gaining a reputation of quality in your market place could replace the need for certification and all certified entities to 9K should be working towards this end.

But you're missing the point of the primary reason for putting in an ISO 9001 based system! It's not only a long term 'solution' (not sure why you chose those words) it's a de facto requirement to be maintained!

ISO 9001 is about the assurance of the organization in the customers' eyes that requirements will be met, systematically. So, you build a rep. with existing customers. Great! But how do you communicate being great to new customers? How do they obtain assurance, before spending money with you, that their confidence is going to be paid back? Not everyone has ranks of SQAs running around evaluating suppliers - thank heavens - and you don't have to maintain several quality programmes for each major customer. THAT's a benefit of being certified...

We sometimes have to get back to basics to understand where we're going...

 

[Specky]

I would disagree.

Who says certificatin is a de facto requirement to be maintained? The only one who has that ability is the customer, but what I am suggesting is that the customer is not in that mind set anymore. You had the requirement, you succeded, and now have a relationship and reputation for quality. You can prove your systems are mature and improving through continued internal audits and opening the doors for any customer to audit you, so what does spending the money for a third party coming in that is not a customer who buys your product give you as a value add??

I think there are answers to your questions, one just needs to think differently than saying that certification to 9k is the answer. They may be different for different companies and that is OK too.

Sometimes getting back to basics limits forward thinking!

 

[AndyN]

I would disagree.

Who says certificatin is a de facto requirement to be maintained? The only one who has that ability is the customer, but what I am suggesting is that the customer is not in that mind set anymore. You had the requirement, you succeded, and now have a relationship and reputation for quality. You can prove your systems are mature and improving through continued internal audits and opening the doors for any customer to audit you, so what does spending the money for a third party coming in that is not a customer who buys your product give you as a value add??

I think there are answers to your questions, one just needs to think differently than saying that certification to 9k is the answer. They may be different for different companies and that is OK too.

Sometimes getting back to basics limits forward thinking!

Not me! - I mentioned the need for an ISO 9001 based system - not certification! How will an existing customer know that you can maintain that performance? At least one aspect of having a CB come by is that when change occurs it can be seen to be planned and not disrupt the past performance. As I stated, not all customers have the resources to send to your organization to assure on-going compliance - which is often more difficult than getting the certificate. You are correct, in that every organization has different needs. Certification and letting it drop is a strategic decision which needs to weigh costs, benefits, customers' (new and old) needs, etc...

To know where you're going it's helpful to know where you came from...

 

[Specky]

My apologies, I read your post in with the context of certification and ISO based system as one in the same.

I understand your point now and agree that a QMS is the important part as well as the struggles would be how you fill the gaps in communication to the customers and bringing new customers in.

 

[AndyN]

My apologies, I read your post in with the context of certification and ISO based system as one in the same.

I understand your point now and agree that a QMS is the important part as well as the struggles would be how you fill the gaps in communication to the customers and bringing new customers in.

Accepted!

 

[Sidney Vianna]

One aspect that hit me after writing the original question is that the company culture could be impacted as employees may believe that there is no emphasis on quality should the decision be made to not recertify. Also that new customers that you haven't built the relationship with may need another form of convincing. I'm not saying that certification inherently gives this to you, just that some thought would be needed on how you would fill this gap with another strategy.

I believe that you should also consider what kind of relationship you have with your certification body and the auditor(s).

Some relationships are healthy and both parties are serious and intended to assure conformity to the standards while they also focus on the betterment of the system, the business processes and the organization. An experienced, seasoned, mature, competent and well intended CB auditor can drive improvement on to the organization by asking some probing, meaningful and risk-based questions.

When the CB/Registrant relationship is healthy and serious, maintaining certification is also useful to keep the discipline of the organization, just like some people need "personal trainers" to keep the discipline of their exercise regime.

On the other hand, if the relationship is dysfunctional, non-value added, confrontational, adversarial, etc... ceasing certification might be beneficial.

In my opinion, a registrant should expect more than a certificate from their CB; they should expect a value added assessment that truly identifies risks that need to be mitigated in their QMS's. But, and unfortunately, most people just want the fancy piece of paper to show their clients they complied with their mandate....

 

[Specky]

I believe that you should also consider what kind of relationship you have with your certification body and the auditor(s).


In my opinion, a registrant should expect more than a certificate from their CB; they should expect a value added assessment that truly identifies risks that need to be mitigated in their QMS's.

Thanks Sidney and you just cut to the sitation that caused me to ask the question! Our CB has not performed well in a few of our sites even with our Quality Managers pushing for better performance. My original question was meant to challenge the norm and press for another way of thinking. Ultimetly I dont think our organization will let our certification drop, but we may go shopping for a new registrar.

I guess its time to look on this forum for postings on registration bodies and see if I cant get some good honest feedback on people's experiences with their registrars!

 

[Wes Bucey]

I would disagree.

Who says certificatin is a de facto requirement to be maintained? The only one who has that ability is the customer, but what I am suggesting is that the customer is not in that mind set anymore. You had the requirement, you succeded, and now have a relationship and reputation for quality. You can prove your systems are mature and improving through continued internal audits and opening the doors for any customer to audit you, so what does spending the money for a third party coming in that is not a customer who buys your product give you as a value add??

I think there are answers to your questions, one just needs to think differently than saying that certification to 9k is the answer. They may be different for different companies and that is OK too.

Sometimes getting back to basics limits forward thinking!

Thanks Sidney and you just cut to the sitation that caused me to ask the question! Our CB has not performed well in a few of our sites even with our Quality Managers pushing for better performance. My original question was meant to challenge the norm and press for another way of thinking. Ultimetly I dont think our organization will let our certification drop, but we may go shopping for a new registrar.

I guess its time to look on this forum for postings on registration bodies and see if I cant get some good honest feedback on people's experiences with their registrars!

Going back to the base reason for registration - marketing tool! It isn't only current customers, but future ones which you have to ameliorate and continue to ameliorate by maintaining registration.

Almost all of us here in the Cove agree in whole or in part that registration is not a guarantee to any customer that the product or service of the registrant reaches even a minimum level of quality, merely that there is a system in place for documentation of the various processes of the registrant. In most instances, customers value consistency of the quality of goods and services, time after time. It is inconsistencies [nonconformances?] which try the patience of a customer looking to achieve consistency in its own operation.

The documentation is the primary evidence of consistency of the operations of the registrant. Consistency of operations is usually a pretty good indicator that consistency of the product or service will follow. (Note - the quality may be good or bad, but it will probably be consistently good or consistently bad )

In the view of many, it is more efficient for customers to trust a third party to audit the documentation system once, rather than each customer perform such audit. The customer still has its own responsibility to determine if the quality of the product or service meets the customer's requirements.

The assurance of a consistent system granted by the third party audit may be a precursor to agreeing to things like "skip lot" inspections and other "trust building" connections between customer and supplier. Those trust issues are the little things that often make the difference between keeping and losing a customer.


The consistency of the service received from auditors working for a specific registrar, either from year to year for a single site or different auditors in different sites in the same year for multi-site registrants is ALSO very important and inconsistency may be a reason to shop for a new supplier of registration.

 

[Bill Pflanz]

One of the original benefits of the registration is that it confirmed that you had or have implemented a management system that meets a standard. If your company is expecting to improve in the future, the management system will change over time. Your registrar allows a third party to review your changes and determine if they are doing what was designed. Idealistically, you would like to believe that you can do that yourself but the reality is that management changes in the future may make it more difficult without the outside help.

Bill Pflanz

 

[Wes Bucey]

One of the original benefits of the registration is that it confirmed that you had or have implemented a management system that meets a standard. If your company is expecting to improve in the future, the management system will change over time. Your registrar allows a third party to review your changes and determine if they are doing what was designed. Idealistically, you would like to believe that you can do that yourself but the reality is that management changes in the future may make it more difficult without the outside help.

Bill Pflanz

I prefer to believe the reality is there were well-managed organizations BEFORE there were international quality management systems Standards. Where do we think the basic model for a well-managed organization came from? It sure didn't grow full-blown from a group of quality geeks sitting around saying, "Hey! Let's create the Standard everybody should follow because WE say so."