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

[Wes Bucey]

Wes,

You are of course correct. True structured manufacturing systems are a recent development.

But I bet those Pharohs had a system to cut the stones relatively uniform.

I was referring to Eli Whitney making interchangeable parts about 1798 for the military. often heralded as the precursor to production line mentality.

I never said they were good at it, just that they appreciated the concept.

Carl-

On this you are correct. As a Mason, I should have been more forebearing. Take a look at this site for an interesting confirmation.
http://www.ncsli.org/misc/cubit.cfm

 

[Don Palmer]

I'd spend my own $$$ in a heartbeat to be ISO 9001 compliant and FULLY implemented.

I would NOT spend my own $$$ for registration UNTIL I had total buy-in from everyone in the company.

Trying to achieve total buy-in after the aircraft has left the ground calls for a lot of barnstorming and wing walking in mid-flight.

 

[Pataha]

I agree with Muleskinner. In fact, I have spent my own personal money to drive my current employer toward ISO 13485. It wasn't until it was required to do business in Canada, that they got on board.

However, the expectations had risen due to the reduced levels of defects and postivie outcomes from external audits.

 

[qualityboi]

A Wicked Answer for a Wicked Question

How dare someone ask such a general open ended question! (I am in jest of course). Every business is in a unique situation to where ISO would be required or not required. We are a 9K2K registered company. We have subsidiaries of our company that are not registered, they do just fine. Now if the debate comes back to does the paper add value, isn't that in the eye of the beer holder? I mean beholder? I guess I dislike the attitude that using ISO for sales and marketing purposes or to meet customer contractural demands is wrong. WEMAP - whatever makes a profit...Do we dare to delve into an area that implies businesses have some ideologically higher moral obligation other than to making a profit? Which seems to be lurking behind door number 1. :truce:

 

[JeremyLek]

Why not register?

Why not register your ISO 9001 ??
Is the same theory about studying .. Since you put so much effort to get your degree program and then dun take the exam paper?

Isn't a waste of effort?? Well this also help ur organsation to gauge their capability certification.....

 

[Carl Keller]

Jeremy,

What if taking the exam costed Thousands of dollars and you did not need a degree to get the job?

You would still have studied and would still have learned, right?

ALSO

What if the exam did not represent whether you actually learned anything or not? Is it useful?

A QMS based on ISO can be a very good tool. The registration itself is worth very little in my estimation. You could put the registration money to much better use.

Regards,

Ccarl-

 

[malicove]

Hi,
this is my first time and English is not my first language so pls exuse any mistakes.
I found this forum very interesting and informative and realized that problems with ISO9001 implementation and external auditing are international so before I answer the question pls find below some comments.
Shortly about myself. Since 2,5 years I have been working as a consultant and additionally as an independent IRCA registered ISO9001:2000 lead auditor for one of the leading international certification companies. I have already audited on their behalf more then 200 various companies from very small (few employees) to big international companies situated in my country. And the
conclusion: there is something wrong with ISO9001 implementation. Very often when auditing I have a feeling that I audit virtual quality management system where main purpose of so called ISO documentation is to produce objective evidence for external auditors. Smaller the company bigger the virtuality. The good news is that the real qms is usually much better then officially presented and often easily complies with ISO requirements.
There are two systems, in one there are: quality policy, quality objectives, corrective and preventive actions, management review and in another one there are: company mission, strategy and goals, business plans, company meetings, management decisions etc. For many (unhappily even auditors) quality policy or objectives is not a quality policy or objective until it is under a big QUALITY POLICY or QUALITY OBJECTIVE name. In reality I often find the situation where under Quality Objective name there are no real quality objectives but I can often find them documented under different name in other documents like business plans. The certification company I work for tell us that there is no requirement to have a quality policy under quality policy name. We have to look for it for instance in documented vision, mission or values and accept if declarations are in compliance with the standard, similarly I shall look for quality objectives in documented business plan etc.
Many times I noticed that you are looking at the forum for the solutions how to proof that horse is a horse. I realized that for many auditiors horse is not a horse until it has a big sticker HORSE and the best if it is signed by President of the Company. The ISO9000 quality language is overused and misunderstood.
Why it is like this?. I still do not finally know but I think this is a compilation of three factors: company, consultant and external auditor.
Companies when deciding to implement ISO9001 do not have enough knowledge anad experience to argue with consultants and external auditors so they accept almost everything.
Consultants main goal is that the company passes certification audit so when advising they force the company to include in their documentation all consultant’s bad experience with bed auditors to avoid any arguing during the audit.
Auditors are not open-minded enough as it is required by ISO190011 7.2.b or IRCA (visit of IRCA webside may be interesting) and very often they treat their own opinions as audit criteria.
All this is a way to kill ISO9001 certification as companies do not see any value in it.
But it may have a big value as an external auditor has a unique possibility to see many organizations and qms implementations and his experience and objective evaluation of company qms and even some kind of suggestions may be very useful unless his audit is concentrated on 4.2 of ISO standard only.
My advise for companies. Do not choose certification company on cost basis only. Ask them what they can offer to you except certificate itself. Ask them if they have any additional requirements to the standard and what are their interpretations of standard clauses. Choose one which suits you company business the best. And change to another one when you are not satisfied. Do not accept two qms systems in your company.
Proper value added auditing and certification companies approach is a way for ISO9001 certification to survive.
So my answer to the question is YES but it will be a long evaluation process before I choose a certification company. Maciek

 

[Laura M]

Excellent, EXCELLENT post

 

[Rob Nix]

Welcome to the Cove, malicove.

As well I say, excellent 1st post. You've summarized the ISO conundrum very well.

I will add though, that if a company has people internally that fully understand (i.e. are as knowledgeable and experienced as any ISO auditor) real quality management systems , coupled with a customer requirement for certification, then you might find the cheapest route/registrar for getting the paper on the wall. Consider them a necessary nuisance, all the while developing, maintaining, and improving the business systems in ways you know will be value added.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing more from you.

 

[Don Palmer]

This guy knows something and has a humble writing style...I like that

Yes, Welcome to the Cove, malicove. Your post is most excellent. You hit the nail squarely and drove it home.