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

[Paul Simpson]

I left it for a while to see if anyone else wanted to come in but as they haven't I'll wade in again.

People want to exclude because they don't see the value of the activity.

Is this a) the activity of complying with ISO as a whole or b) the requirements of a particular clause because the response is different. If it is a) then really they should get another job because once it is in there's only one person going to be asked to maintain it.

Wanting to do the minimum to satisfy the requirement is not good. But wanting to get the maximum benefit for the minimum effort is healthy.

I accept the difference. If all you are doing by doing the minimum is pay lip service to a requirement then again you are taking value from the system rather than add to it.

A lot of the things done in the name of ISO involve lots of effort and formality but little tangible benefit.

Now if you mean that some people in implementing a system to get through ISO certification do the wrong thing and add no benefit then we are in total agreement.

I can't, however, think of one requirement from the standard that adds no value, can anyone?

 

[CliffK]

I left it for a while to see if anyone else wanted to come in but as they haven't I'll wade in again.
Is this a) the activity of complying with ISO as a whole or b) the requirements of a particular clause because the response is different. If it is a) then really they should get another job because once it is in there's only one person going to be asked to maintain it.

Joining you in laughter.

From what I've seen, it's b).

I accept the difference. If all you are doing by doing the minimum is pay lip service to a requirement then again you are taking value from the system rather than add to it.

Now if you mean that some people in implementing a system to get through ISO certification do the wrong thing and add no benefit then we are in total agreement.

Yes, if wrong thing includes systems that are too complicated, bureaucratic, labor intensive over-engineered, over-documented or any combination and/or permutation of the above.

I can't, however, think of one requirement from the standard that adds no value, can anyone?

Me either. That said, I can think of at least one situation where the cost of complying with an element of the standard exceeded the value derived from compliance with that element. I believe I could come up with a handful if I really thought about it a lot.

 

[JaneB]

The benefit of a good external audit on a regular basis, is it gives life to the system. Without that, there would have to be an enormous amount of support and willpower on the part of top management. It can be done, but I have not seen many succesful examples.

... without the "friendly pressure" of being audited, discipline to maintain and improve processes would tend to be lost. Upper management would pay even more lip-service to quality and having nobody to keep them accountable. In a perfect World, we would not need audits, IRS, final exams, driver's tests and many more "verification activities".

I have been reading Peter Senge's Fifth Discipline and he talks about commitment (to anything) with the example of speed limits. Commitment is only complete if you would drive at that speed even if the limit wasn't there. How many organizations could we say that about when it comes to ISO?

I agree with you all. I could count on the fingers of 1 hand the very few organisations who were actually functioning at a minimum level required by ISO 9001 without being certified. A tiny number out of all the organisations and systems I've looked at. Whereas I've also come across many who claimed to 'have ISO 9001 systems' ... Which has invariably, in my experience, actually translated into zilch. As in: 'Oh yeah, we do the occasional bit of it but we drop off/ignore all the bits we don't wanna bother with, including anything requiring any kind of rigour, records, doc control, etc etc, let alone strategy, objectives, management review, audit, systematic approaches to NCF, corrective/preventive action, etc, etc.'.

If all you are doing by doing the minimum is pay lip service to a requirement then again you are taking value from the system rather than add to it.

Ooh, very true. Garbage in, garbage out. How anyone expects to get anything more out than they are willing to invest, is quite beyond me. I think that only works in winning lotteries. And look at the odds of that coming off.

I can't, however, think of one requirement from the standard that adds no value, can anyone?

Nope. Me neither. Not one.

Yes, if wrong thing includes systems that are too complicated, bureaucratic, labor intensive over-engineered, over-documented or any combination and/or permutation of the above.

BUT that is not the fault of the Standard. The causes there can include failure to understand it, failure of implementation, failure in systems design, even failure in mental capacity... it should not be laid at the feet of the Standard itself.

There are some truly awful drivers on the roads here. They're obeying the road rules... but they're still damned awful drivers. That's not the fault of the road law!

All that said, I too wish there was more/better objective data around to demonstrate the value added (or not, if so be it), and assist in improvement.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

...

All that said, I too wish there was more/better objective data around to demonstrate the value added (or not, if so be it), and assist in improvement.

I tell clients that well crafted metrics - measuring every process in a meaningful way (cl 4.1.c and e) - are the best way to achieve that.

 

[JaneB]

I tell clients that well crafted metrics - measuring every process in a meaningful way (cl 4.1.c and e) - are the best way to achieve that.

Quite. But I was referring to information in the public domain - ie, good data available to third parties to demonstrate (or not).

There seems to be a distinct shortage of solid data in the form of reports based on sound research, etc. to show that. It's something many people have an interest in - ie, what have other organisations achieved?

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Quite. But I was referring to information in the public domain - ie, good data available to third parties to demonstrate (or not).

There seems to be a distinct shortage of solid data in the form of reports based on sound research, etc. to show that. It's something many people have an interest in - ie, what have other organisations achieved?

Industry Week puts out some industry benchmark data. And, the PMA association collects data on some of its members. It would be nice if there were more, but it is out there. Unfortunately, most is not free.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Industry Week puts out some industry benchmark data. And, the PMA association collects data on some of its members. It would be nice if there were more, but it is out there. Unfortunately, most is not free.

And even more unfortunately, much of it is unreliable. Unless you're looking at the financials of a publically-traded company, there's just no way to verify the claims of any company that says that ISO registration helped them to increase profitability. And even with publically-held companies you still face the burden of demonstrating a causal link.

 

[HiroMatsu]

I voted no.
I agree that a well designed and mantained ISO9001 system is worth the effort. Registration is ... something else. I've seen audits from two different important european certification companys, in three different audited companyes. I won't name them, so don't ask. Pains me too say that the audits were worthless. I could spot 10 important non-conformances in 1 hour where they didn't see 1. Last audit (in the company where I'm currently employed) was like 7000euros. They've seen non-conform material lying around unmarked. They've seen negligence, people unaware of what ISO means, not knowing what procedures are, etc. But turned a blind eye, 'cuz in 2 weeks certification would have expired. No time to correct anything. My boss and I explained to them that if they withdraw our certification we would do re-certification with another company. So ... They didn't see a thing.
I only hope that's the Romania's tradition. If the same thing is universaly accepted then certification is worthless.

 

[Benjamin28]

Pains me too say that the audits were worthless. I could spot 10 important non-conformances in 1 hour where they didn't see 1. Last audit (in the company where I'm currently employed) was like 7000euros. They've seen non-conform material lying around unmarked. They've seen negligence, people unaware of what ISO means, not knowing what procedures are, etc. But turned a blind eye, 'cuz in 2 weeks certification would have expired. No time to correct anything. My boss and I explained to them that if they withdraw our certification we would do re-certification with another company. So ... They didn't see a thing.
I only hope that's the Romania's tradition. If the same thing is universaly accepted then certification is worthless.

Though I'm sure some instances of corruption occur I am also sure that such instances are highly uncommon. Additionally most companies will be audited by their clients as well, who would not turn a blind eye to a poorly executed QMS. I work for the aerospace industry however, so it could be different in other industries. For our part we are very much aware of our role in flight safety and we take every measure to ensure we meet or exceed the quality standards of the industry.

As far as registrars go, if it was my company, yes I would spend the money on ISO 9001 registration. I would also ensure that investment worked for me by enhancing my QMS, not just buying a peice of paper on the wall.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

.... My boss and I explained to them that if they withdraw our certification we would do re-certification with another company. So ... They didn't see a thing.
...

Sounds like you are complaining out of both sides... complaining that auditors are not writing things, but threatening to fire them if they do...:mg:

I agree, auditors should provide value. most of the ones I know, do.