Would you spend your own $$$ for ISO 9001 registration

[jcbodie]

I have a proposal to resolve all our concerns: what if a registar gets paid to find non-conformances only.

If you have a good QMS, you pay nothing and maintain registeration!!!!
If you have a lousy QMS, you pay for your sins and no more window dressing!!!!

Of course, the registar (trying to make money) will nitpick everything but it maybe a small price to pay for continual improvement.

What do you think?

Hey, let's go a step further. I'm assuming you are the QA or manufacturing Mgr. working at the company manufacturing the widgets that I'm purchasng. If you have a good QMS, and everything you ship to me is good, I pay nothing towards your salary, since the system did what it was suppose to do and you were not necessary (non-value added). If you have a lousy QMS (that didn't catch the process or product issues), your salary is determined by how many parts you rework, how quickly you do it and how satisfied I am with your performance.

Better yet, if we outsource your companys' work altogether, you won't have a job, but it'll certainly solve the problem of those irritating registration audits.

What do you think??

 

[Paul Simpson]

Performance related pay

If you have a good QMS, you pay nothing and maintain registeration!!!!
If you have a lousy QMS, you pay for your sins and no more window dressing!!!!

Of course, the registar (trying to make money) will nitpick everything but it maybe a small price to pay for continual improvement.

What do you think?

When I was working for one registrar (who shall remain unnamed!) they were looking to install a means of measuring performance - it was suggested by some of the senior assessors that a measure could be the number of noncompliances raised at audit. The logic being that "good" auditors would find holes and "bad" auditors would miss them. It wasn't implemented but there are still some people out there who truly believe you can only have done a good job if you leave a customer with a long list of things to fix.

 

[Wes Bucey]

I feel like the kid saying "the Emperor has no clothes!"

Will someone please refresh my memory why I, as a customer, want my suppliers to have formal registration to a specific Standard? What real benefit do I derive as a customer?

The Standard and its registrars repeatedly say they are only concerned with the registrant's quality system, not the quality of the products that system produces, nor of the service that system renders to me.

As a customer, the supplier's adherence to a Standard "system" doesn't guarantee me a good product any more than the salesman's promise (maybe less.) I can point to plenty of anecdotal evidence that "some" registrants turn out dreck products and services, PLUS I can take you to at least one supplier and let you judge for yourself.

I pretty much assume a supplier holding itself open for business thinks it has capability and capacity to fulfill my order, regardless if it has formal registration to a Standard or not. The existence of a registration certificate to a Standard doesn't prevent me from falling victim to a supplier overestimating his capability or capacity. If a supplier registered to a Standard fails to meet my requirements, I'm pretty sure its registrar will not even give me the courtesy of a "Sorry about that!" let alone pay me some sort of compensation for my trouble.

If I am a supplier and I believe the rumors that having an ISO certificate of registration will NOT give me a market advantage and none of my customers demand such registration, is there ANY advantage to paying the fee for registration rather than hiring top notch employees and going to a GREAT consulting firm who will be my advocate by terms of the contract and will help assure I have a GREAT Quality System turning out Great Products? Do I even have to bother claiming "compliance" to a Standard (Toyota doesn't)?

 

[Denis9001 - 2007]

Carl - It's not really a "passing test' scenario but I know what you mean. If what you say is true in the USA then confidendence is lost and I agree it is worthless.

I don't know how you got your statistics, would be interested in your source. In reality certification is rarely withdrawn for non-compliance because the auditor cannot do that. He raises a major NCN. This automatically means suspension (not withdrawal) of registration. If on the next visit (or follow-up) it is not corrected then withdrawal is automatic but this rarely happens. The client would cancel registration. He's not going to pay for a visit when he knows it will result in withdrawal. It's better to track statistics for major non-compliances.

Maybe my university degree example was invalid but you did not address the more accurate one of company accounts being certified by a CPA rather than simply believing what the company says. Maybe you are not disputing the merits of independent auditing and certification but rather the professionalism of registrars in your country.

Sure seeing with your own eyes is better, be it 'show me your excel capabilities' or 'showing up unannounced to audit' but that isn't always feasable. I don't have time to watch every job applicant use excel so filter those with certificates then check just them. Similarly if you want to find a supplier in Asia (where I am) what will you do. Fly out unannounced and audit all prospective suppliers or only those with ISO9001 certificates or hire local independent auditors to do it for you.

Having said that, I think ISO9001 will die (or morph). I'm surprised at the poor ethics in the USA although Enron gave an indication but the real problem is China. They virtually buy certificates there (no assessment) and that will lead to a total collapse in confidence in ISO9001. But the need for independent certification is growing so it will stay albeit in a different form.

 

[Paul Simpson]

I feel like the kid saying "the Emperor has no clothes!"

A well worn phrase around ISO 9000. But just because it is popular doesn't mean it is so.

Will someone please refresh my memory why I, as a customer, want my suppliers to have formal registration to a specific Standard? What real benefit do I derive as a customer?

Again, I am sure this has been dealt with a hundred times in the cove but here goes again: I believe the idea is I, as the customer, can have some confidence the supplier has quality management systems and that they have been independently assessed against the requirements of an international standard.

The Standard and its registrars repeatedly say they are only concerned with the registrant's quality system, not the quality of the products that system produces, nor of the service that system renders to me.

The idea is that the system enables the product to be manufactured to your requirements or the service is delivered to your requirements because I, as the supplier, am following a defined system.

As a customer, the supplier's adherence to a Standard "system" doesn't guarantee me a good product any more than the salesman's promise (maybe less.)

Can I sell you a car?

I can point to plenty of anecdotal evidence that "some" registrants turn out dreck products and services, PLUS I can take you to at least one supplier and let you judge for yourself.

Again the idea is if I have a system that captures customer requirements, design products / services and plan their production / delivery and then deliver the product / service it should meet your requirements. The problems typically come at the interfaces - hence the focus on a process based approach to try and think across boundaries. Regrettably systems are not perfect. They are designed and implemented by people.

I pretty much assume a supplier holding itself open for business thinks it has capability and capacity to fulfill my order, regardless if it has formal registration to a Standard or not. The existence of a registration certificate to a Standard doesn't prevent me from falling victim to a supplier overestimating his capability or capacity. If a supplier registered to a Standard fails to meet my requirements, I'm pretty sure its registrar will not even give me the courtesy of a "Sorry about that!" let alone pay me some sort of compensation for my trouble.

Again there are no guarantees but - as has been mentioned in other threads - your first recourse is to the registered firm to use their corrective action system, the next escalation is to the registrar for them to investigate and if that fails you can complain to the accreditation body.

If I am a supplier and I believe the rumors that having an ISO certificate of registration will NOT give me a market advantage and none of my customers demand such registration, is there ANY advantage to paying the fee for registration rather than hiring top notch employees and going to a GREAT consulting firm who will be my advocate by terms of the contract and will help assure I have a GREAT Quality System turning out Great Products? Do I even have to bother claiming "compliance" to a Standard (Toyota doesn't)?

As a supplier you are entitled to make your choice. If for the dollars you spend on registration you can hire employees who will make a difference or hire consultants who can put you down the right path then all power to your elbow. Many companies who are registered (such as Toyota in the UK) do not make a great song and dance about their registration (or "compliance" as you call it), probably because the majority of their potential customers are either not aware of ISO 9000 or its automotive variants. They do have it on their web site:

http://www.toyotauk.com/main/download/pdf/Awards and Accred June 2005.pdf

 

[Jim Wynne]

Again, I am sure this has been dealt with a hundred times in the cove but here goes again: I believe the idea is I, as the customer, can have some confidence the supplier has quality management systems and that they have been independently assessed against the requirements of an international standard.

Which is indicative of what, other than itself? I think the point is that being registered doesn't make for reliable predictions of anything with regard to output. If you have data to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

The idea is that the system enables the product to be manufactured to your requirements or the service is delivered to your requirements because I, as the supplier, am following a defined system.

That may be the idea, but it makes no sense. Products were being manufactured to requirements for a long time before ISO (or BSI even). It's possible to follow a defined system and make nothing but "dreck" as Wes put it.

The problems typically come at the interfaces - hence the focus on a process based approach to try and think across boundaries. Regrettably systems are not perfect. They are designed and implemented by people.

Sorry Paul, but this is, as Mr. T would say, "jibba jabba." How do you define "interface"? Is an interface somewhere between processes? In my experience, the "interface" is the safest place to be. Problems happen within processes.

 

[Denis9001 - 2007]

I heard many years ago (dunno if true or urban myth) that in Chine (must be myth) you pay doctors like a subscription fee when your healthy. When you are sick you stop paying. Concept being that the healthier the doctors clients are the more he earns.

 

[Denis9001 - 2007]

Paul - Last year UKAS made moves to track this. They compared number of NCNs issued against CB application office and auditor. Theory being almost as you said. If few NCNs raised then the audit wasn't thorough.

 

[Denis9001 - 2007]

Wes - not sure if you don't see value in the standard or regsitration against the standard. I would say both you and Paul are right. You see no point and it doesn't give you any more confidence in a supplier. OK fine, then you ignore it. But it may (does) give others more confidence so where's the harm. I think it comes more to play not with suppliers like Toyota who you already know well but prospective suppliers who you know relatively little about.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Wes - not sure if you don't see value in the standard or regsitration against the standard. I would say both you and Paul are right. You see no point and it doesn't give you any more confidence in a supplier. OK fine, then you ignore it. But it may (does) give others more confidence so where's the harm. I think it comes more to play not with suppliers like Toyota who you already know well but prospective suppliers who you know relatively little about.

The harm is in the false sense of security that it (registration) creates. If we can agree that there is no measureable benefit in registration (other than keeping customers who require it happy), then what's the point?
I have seen the stifling effect that ISO registration can have on creativity and innovation when it comes to quality system design. We all know that ISO describes a minimum framework but unfortunately there are lots of people outside the quality profession who think that getting registered is like going to heaven--that something wonderful and awesome has been accomplished. After a registrar's auditor has swept through the building and pronounced that all is well, just try telling someone who has a serious issue that the auditor didn't catch that they need to change something. They look at you like you're crazy.
My own opinion is that the whole registration phenomenon has caused much more harm than good.