Why re-up ISO9001? Why continue registration?

[gbcqc]

Yes, Yes, Yes..........

If you (the company) make the best product, with the best people, at the best price, they will come knocking at your door no matter which so-called "registration" organization intervenes.

Always drive for the best, even in the face of artificial help.

Al...

Mr. Dyer, my experience in two industries (automotive, aerospace) has been that a company can make a less than average product for a cheap price with no Registration and the customers will run to them for the cost savings and not the quality.

 

[Stijloor]

Mr. Dyer, my experience in two industries (automotive, aerospace) has been that a company can make a less than average product for a cheap price with no Registration and the customers will run to them for the cost savings and not the quality.

Cheap will always come at a price...sooner or later....

Stijloor.

 

[crager34]

Cheap will always come at a price...sooner or later....

Stijloor.

I have also found that in my industry (Nuclear Quality Assurance - NQA-1), when bidding on new work the Quality hours are quite often cut back in order to lower cost to be more competative. It should go without saying that having a Certified ISO 9001 or qualified NQA-1 program isn't the only thing cost. It is also the implementation of the program during the life of the work/project.

(I hope this isn't off topic)

 

[dksfwmcc]

All the earlier points about the need to add value to your business are correct & should be the primary driver but do not neglect other benefits of an audit from an external body:
1. A GOOD auditor will have experieince on where you can improve based on best practices he/she has seen in the industry; these may not be recorded formally in findings, in fact some of the real benefits to our company have come from this srt of informal advice.
2. Your managers/quality team may be brilliant, but the same thing said by an 'external expert' will work wonders with some people when the refuse to do what managers/quality team advises!
3. ISO is about doing things in a consistent manner, ultimately while you have this it is a non negotiable common goal, as soon as you take this away even if you replace it with a common company ethos/policy (call it what you will) people will argue this common ethos/policy is not in their best interest & try to change it (so the do less & quality is impacted ... usually!)
Taking away the standard (common goal) is great in theory, but in practice beware!

 

[gbcqc]

Cheap will always come at a price...sooner or later....

Stijloor.

Yes, but it still does not help the company that went through the registration and hard work of making a very good product to print and
follows the rules set forth and doe not get the business because of price difference that the customer's purchasing are hailed as heroes for "bringing down part cost".

I have been on both sides:

1) being the SQE saying don't use these guys, they are trouble waiting to happen and being over-ruled because of cost and then the one who is sent to "fix" the problem. And our department getting the blame because it is a "quality issue".

2) being the supplier not getting the contract because of a shop that is not certified to a "required standard" and cheap prices. Then the SQE of that company complaints about being told to go for the cheaper price.

 

[Specky]

dksfwmcc,

To your points....

1) Still looking for that auditor!! I have been through 3 different registration bodies and still haven’t found the 3rd party auditor that adds value through their audits.

2) I agree absolutely! But, you have to still find that external expert.

3) Not sure if this is a context issue, but your last sentence of "taking away the standard..." isn’t what I was suggesting at all. The standard and the quality system that has been built would stay intact with work to continually improve. Just the registration is at question because there is no value added.

 

[AndyN]

dksfwmcc,

To your points....

1) Still looking for that auditor!! I have been through 3 different registration bodies and still haven’t found the 3rd party auditor that adds value through their audits.

Would you care to share what this means to you and your organization? We read here and in other websites about the fabled 'value-added audit'. I suspect that it's like a lot of things to do with customers, that is 'expectations' rather than clear requirements. The problems is that most people don't know what customers 'expect' and these often go unspoken. How did you let the 3 CBs know of your requirements and expectations for these value added audits?

 

[Wes Bucey]

dksfwmcc,

To your points....

1) Still looking for that auditor!! I have been through 3 different registration bodies and still haven’t found the 3rd party auditor that adds value through their audits.

2) I agree absolutely! But, you have to still find that external expert.

3) Not sure if this is a context issue, but your last sentence of "taking away the standard..." isn’t what I was suggesting at all. The standard and the quality system that has been built would stay intact with work to continually improve. Just the registration is at question because there is no value added.

Would you care to share what this means to you and your organization? We read here and in other websites about the fabled 'value-added audit'. I suspect that it's like a lot of things to do with customers, that is 'expectations' rather than clear requirements. The problems is that most people don't know what customers 'expect' and these often go unspoken. How did you let the 3 CBs know of your requirements and expectations for these value added audits?

Interesting diversion and worthy of a separate thread - perhaps entitled "What is 'value added' auditing - and who has an [some] example(s) from real life?"

In such a thread, we might explore the concept both from a CB point of view (is it more than just a marketing "puff?") and from an auditee point of view (What does an auditee expect? What did he bargain for? What did he really get?)

 

[dv8shane]

You have a QMS in place, it is healthy, and you will continue to improve the system so why pay to recertify? Interested in any and all comments!!

I understand what you are saying. I have been having the same thoughts. My company is currently registered to ISO9001 and AS9100 and I have seen no real benefit yet. The QA system was in place and strong. The major customer base did not change. They had asked the same questions each year and audited me on site at least once and found my company compliant prior to registration. I chose registration almost like an experiment with the second biggest reason being to prove to myself the company met the standards. If it was supposed to be a marketing tool I have yet to see the benefit

 

[Wes Bucey]

I understand what you are saying. I have been having the same thoughts. My company is currently registered to ISO9001 and AS9100 and I have seen no real benefit yet. The QA system was in place and strong. The major customer base did not change. They had asked the same questions each year and audited me on site at least once and found my company compliant prior to registration. I chose registration almost like an experiment with the second biggest reason being to prove to myself the company met the standards. If it was supposed to be a marketing tool I have yet to see the benefit

Marketing the value of a registration to ISO 9001 presupposes an organization has capability and capacity to add business. At that point, it is a matter for the bosses to assign someone to identify targets who require (or would be impressed by) ISO registration and pitch those targets on doing business.

ISO registration may be a big neon sign, but someone has to mount the sign where it can be seen and then flip the switch to light it up.

Personally, I think showing folks how to market the fact of their registration would be a useful "value added" benefit for registrars to offer.