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

[Jim Wynne]

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.

Excellent! Welcome! Of course, the problem is that in most companies there are more horse's arses than there are horses .

 

[Carl Keller]

Excellent post, I would agree!

I would add, I do not want my registrar giving me "value added" services!

That does not mean they are stupid or do not have some good ideas, it just is not what I hired them for.

I hire them to audit me to the ISO9001 standard and point out any areas that do not meet the standard.

If I want advice on how to run my business, I will hire a consultant, and it will probably be a bit cheaper than the $$$ per day plus expenses my registrar charges.

The registration process is already subjective enough.

Companies need to keep in mind (and remind their registrar) that we are the CUSTOMER! Yes, we need to develop a partnership with them, but when it comes right down to it, they work for us.

Carl-

 

[Wes Bucey]

Hi,
this is my first time and English is not my first language so pls exuse any mistakes.
. . .

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

Congratulations on your first post! Lots of good points!
Lots of good stuff and great insight into the psychology of many organizations which strive for Registration to a Standard.

So, now that you've broken the ice and found we don't bite, I expect to see more of your posts in the future.

I might quibble with "value-added auditing." I prefer to spend the extra time and money to develop an internal auditing team to provide "value-added" auditing kept strictly in-house.

Like Carl, I am leery of an auditor who offers too many suggestions for my business. Here's just one reason: If the auditor is giving me the benefit of his experience viewing processes of other companies, then he may be giving away my competitive edge when he goes to another company and shares his experiences at MY company, regardless if he ever mentions the name of my company.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Here's just one reason: If the auditor is giving me the benefit of his experience viewing processes of other companies, then he may be giving away my competitive edge when he goes to another company and shares his experiences at MY company, regardless if he ever mentions the name of my company.

I am surprised with this comment. What is this website all about? People sharing their experiences and advice, for the betterment of people and organizations. If you could show me one post in which proprietary information was disclosed, to the detriment of an organization, I would be surprised. You are one of the premier contributors here, Wes. Do you think that the advice you have been providing here is being usurped from your previous employers?

There is a big difference between providing insightful feedback to an organization, as part of an audit and (unlawfully) break confidentiality agreements and disseminate proprietary know how and intellectual property.

During an audit I did earlier this year, I told an organization that, even though many aspects of their management system was world class level, their corrective action process was average, at best. They asked me to put them in touch with an organization they could communicate with and understand how a high performing corrective action process could work. So I did. And they were very appreciative.

In my opinion, auditors can point out many opportunities for improvement to organizations, without crossing the "consulting line" and without doing anything unethical. But, like always, that is just my opinion.

 

[Wes Bucey]

I am surprised with this comment. What is this website all about? People sharing their experiences and advice, for the betterment of people and organizations. If you could show me one post in which proprietary information was disclosed, to the detriment of an organization, I would be surprised. You are one of the premier contributors here, Wes. Do you think that the advice you have been providing here is being usurped from your previous employers?

There is a big difference between providing insightful feedback to an organization, as part of an audit and (unlawfully) break confidentiality agreements and disseminate proprietary know how and intellectual property.

During an audit I did earlier this year, I told an organization that, even though many aspects of their management system was world class level, their corrective action process was average, at best. They asked me to put them in touch with an organization they could communicate with and understand how a high performing corrective action process could work. So I did. And they were very appreciative.

In my opinion, auditors can point out many opportunities for improvement to organizations, without crossing the "consulting line" and without doing anything unethical. But, like always, that is just my opinion.

I stand by my original statement.
I give plenty of data today that I would not have given ten years ago because then the data represented a competitive edge my company enjoyed over MY competitors. I no longer own a manufacturing company, hence I feel free to give away "secrets" I kept to myself for many years.

I do not give any of the competitive secrets from my stint as the CFO and Quality Director of an aerospace manufacturer because that organization is still in business. I am not under "pressure to perform" a value-added audit and therefore I can easily refrain from giving up secrets from one client to another client.

I agree most auditors are highly ethical people, but I do know some who are neither ethical nor particularly intelligent enough to have creative ideas of their own. Those are precisely the kind of people I used to "charm and cajole" when I was an investment banker in a continual process of trying to gain nonpublic information about target companies and their competitors that would give me a competitive edge against my own competitors in the investment banking business.

Since I spent a large part of my adult life gathering such information, I know how easily some people can be pressured or coerced to give up information. The ploys range from offering personal profit to "phony praise" for how smart they were to spot such useful tidbits of information. Many of my competitors ran employment agencies for the express purpose of pumping information out of job candidates. It is surprising how much information a skilled interviewer can assemble from talking to just two or three people in various departments throughout an organization when they are led to believe they are leading candidates for lucrative positions at another organization.

It is a rare candidate who is wary of the true motives of a person offering a lucrative job, especially when the interviewer is an attractive young person who asks seemingly legitimate questions with dialog like this,
"I think you would be a really good candidate for this position, but I have to be able to convince them you've been instrumental in some key improvement at your present company."

"Did you do anything like that?"

"Yeah. Well lots of guys claim they were instrumental, but I need details to convince them you really were one of the leaders and not just some drone who lucked into being part of the team. What was the key factor that made this initiative successful? How was it better than what you had before? What were some of the pitfalls you encountered and overcame? How did you overcome them? Just how successful was this? You could say, for instance, it resulted in a 100% increase in profit, but that would be meaningless if the original profit were only a few thousand dollars. I need some concrete facts to convince them you are the guy for this job!"

Heck! I once got a lot of information just by sitting in a saloon half a block down the street from a company and losing money at pool to guys wearing company logo shirts under the pretext I was looking to change jobs. I had guys competing to tell details of how things worked and how much product they were shipping (or screwing up.) Usually, the scenario was kind of "can you top this?"

Bottom line: I am concerned about ethical behavior today because I have such intimate knowledge of the ease with which folks can be seduced to cross the line.

 

[Jim Wynne]

In my opinion, auditors can point out many opportunities for improvement to organizations, without crossing the "consulting line" and without doing anything unethical.

Nothing in your post served to refute Sidney's basic premise. If you have an auditor who is a "blabber" you'll know it early on in the process and you can act accordingly. There's a big difference between gossiping about what one has seen in other companies and pointing out opportunities that should represent common knowledge. If an auditor can't distinguish between proprietary information and public domain, he has no business being an auditor.

 

[malicove]

Hi,
thanks for your comments they are very encouraging but sets a crossbar high for me (hope not too high).

The main reason of my thread was to support ISO9001 future. It is a good standard in my opinion and should not be treated as a technical standard and implemented on “to pass” basis only but as something which creates PDCA circles and value to the company (too big words?). So value added audit is a part of it.

Re value added audit.

If you need a certificate only you do not need any audit at all. Certificate can probably be bought. And even if you have to be audited you can buy so called “proved” ISO Documentation and insert the name of your company within it, however it will only create costs for your company: cost of certification and follow up audits and costs of your people preparing objective evidence for auditor (you can however choose the least productive employee to do this to keep the costs low). I have a feeling that a second detailed ISO9001 standard exists all over the world and everybody knows that preparing company and it’s documentation according to this ensure certification. Even auditors feel more comfortable when they see familiar solutions.

If my earlier thread created smallest value it means that external audits can do it, without my experience as an external auditor it would had never been written (difficult conditional sentence).

First obligation of the auditor is to confirm that company qms complies to ISO standard. My experience is that because ISO9001 is general and objective generally every more or less successful company now (almost) compiles but they are not aware of it. There are ISO9001 elements all over the company management system under different names so in the beginning they shall be identified, pointed out and documented if required. The problem is however that for many external auditors something does not exists unless it is named according to ISO9000 (which is obliviously not requirement of ISO9001). And often the result is that if already mentioned horse is defined in ISO9000 and company puts a big signed sticker HORSE on a donkey it passes the audit with “ears too long” observation only. I think that overuse of quality language is damaging. I know companies which named their “clever idea box”: “ISO9001 box” , nobody is throwing anything to it (except few denunciations).
So generally I do not think this is a problem to comply (at least virtually) with ISO9001 and pass the certification. The problem is how to implement ISO9001 so it can be used by the company for business improvement and competitiveness. The question shall be not how to pass an audit but what is the best solution for my company. We all agree that this forum shall not exist to provide answers how to pass certification audit only (even if some suggestions are really helpful) but how to improve qms.

External audit shall be used as one of the tools for business improvement especially that you have to pay for it (no one will pay more for your product because you are certified). Basic value is that your auditor is open-minded and experienced so he does not spoil your qms. Next he should sense virtuality of the system and point it out (usually the reason is wrong interpretation of the standard). And finally he shall suggest improvements and by this way spread good business practices (not technology) and decrease risks. He has a rare opportunity to observe how ideas work in reality in various environments.

Re ethic.
Ethic problem is not with auditors only. Note that this the first requirement for the auditor according to ISO190011 (second is open-mind!!). You have this problem with employees, managers etc. I do not think that somebody who would like to get information about other company will hire external auditor, there are better ways to do it. So if auditor reveals info about other companies this is not a matter of ethic but stupidity (if it is a correct English word for this) and stupid and close-minded auditors shall be eliminated (but no exterminated, give them a chance). Somebody in the company the best if he has Wes experience can evaluate auditor at the beginning of the audit and when he noticed that he reveals confidential information of other companies simply say him good-by and report to his principals. As mentioned earlier key to ISO9001 quality and existence is with the companies, they shall be demanding not docile.
By the way, I do not thing that revealing information that Motorola use SixSigma pose any threat to this organization. You can find a lot of info abut various companies in business and management magazines like HBR. Auditor shall have general management knowledge obviously not to advise but to sense, discover and point out areas for improvement, and PDCA circle applies to him.
Maciek

 

[Carl Keller]

Maciek,

I can't argue with most of what you say, but if I hire you to give me a cert that says "Horse" and you spend time (that I am paying you for) on checking my Chicken coop, there's a problem.

As I said, If I need "value added" business advice, I will hire a consultant that specializes in it.

Wes,

I 100% agree with you. There is a BIG difference between talking about Quality in general on this forum, and having a Registrar auditor who usually concentrates in a given business sector looking into the details of your business. An if they are not looking into the details, how value added would it actually be? Confidentially agreement signed or not, that is a lot of trust to be putting in someone who is likely to be walking into your copmpetitors lobby in a few weeks.

It is my beleif that Registrars have consistently tried to push the idea that if you want registration, you have to play their game. Coercing companies to buy into "value added auditing" is just another ploy in the string justifications for their existence. As I said before, they should concentrate on making audits (and the standard) less subjective so the process will be of more benefit to everyone. All I ask is for you to do the job I hired you for in a reasonable time, no less, no more.



Carl-

 

[Jim Wynne]

Maciek,

I can't argue with most of what you say, but if I hire you to give me a cert that says "Horse" and you spend time (that I am paying you for) on checking my Chicken coop, there's a problem.

As I said, If I need "value added" business advice, I will hire a consultant that specializes in it.

Wes,

I 100% agree with you. There is a BIG difference between talking about Quality in general on this forum, and having a Registrar auditor who usually concentrates in a given business sector looking into the details of your business. An if they are not looking into the details, how value added would it actually be? Confidentially agreement signed or not, that is a lot of trust to be putting in someone who is likely to be walking into your copmpetitors lobby in a few weeks.

It is my beleif that Registrars have consistently tried to push the idea that if you want registration, you have to play their game. Coercing companies to buy into "value added auditing" is just another ploy in the string justifications for their existence. As I said before, they should concentrate on making audits (and the standard) less subjective so the process will be of more benefit to everyone. All I ask is for you to do the job I hired you for in a reasonable time, no less, no more.



Carl-

This has gone off on tangent. So-called "value-added" auditing by registrars is a different subject. What Sidney was referring to, and Wes disagreed with (I think) was the idea of an auditor making suggestions for improvement based on observations made during the audit. It has nothing to do with wandering out behind the barn when the auditor is supposed to be examining the livestock inside. Wes makes the broad assumption that if an auditor has a good suggestion, it might be a proprietary secret gleaned from a previous audit of a competing company, thus no one's secrets are safe if auditors are free to make suggestions. The fact is that there are some (many) companies out there for whom common knowledge is a foreign concept, and the suggestion that it might be a good idea to put the most-used raw materials nearest the production floor is not likely to be a threat to anyone.

 

[Carl Keller]

Can't speak for Wes, but I was not off on a Tangent.

Value added services and lack of consistency in the standard and auditing thereof are the main reasons why I would not spend my own $ on ISO registration, which was the subject of the thread.

How another company does it has nothing to do with meeting the standard. There are a lot of "right" as well as a lot of "wrong" ways to do something. It is not the Auditors place to share anything outside of the elements of the standard.

Moving raw materials closer to the production floor may very well be the reason company A puts company B out of business, in any case, it has nothing to do with ISO 9001, so the Auditors should keep such "advice" to themselves.

Carl-