The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line

Thread Closed  Topic Closed
  The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  Registrars and Registration
  Self Declaration to Standard

Post New Topic  
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Self Declaration to Standard
Carl
unregistered
posted 04 April 2001 10:28 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

What does everyone think about a self declaration of ISO 9001 2000 conformance? The standard mentions nothing specifically about a company declaring conformance. It also says nothing specific about a party needing to be RAB registered to register a company. In fact ãRABä is not mentioned in the 9001 2000 standard at all. The reality is that we all know that auditors audit to their own point of view and some miss some points while others miss other points. It is human nature. There are also good auditors and not so good auditors, both RAB recognized and not. I would think that the owner of a mid-sized business with an investment in a quality group and auditors would be willing to put his/her business to the test with the customer if they truly believed that the standard was a beneficial document and not just a certificate you hang on the wall. I would also think that the customer would be much more comfortable testing the quality management system with their own quality group, rather than taking the third parties word that the system conforms, when that third party may, but may not have their best interest in mind. What keeps me or anyone else from issuing a certificate stating a company is 9001 2000 compliant? Considering the standard makes no claim to product quality or fit for use, the liability of self declaration should be minimal. What do you think?

IP: Logged

ISO GUY
Forum Contributor

Posts: 81
From:Rochester, NY
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 04 April 2001 11:54 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ISO GUY   Click Here to Email ISO GUY     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I don't know about everyone else, but IMHO I think that you would lose an awful lot of business if you said you are Compliant Versus Certified. Time and time again I have been told by our customers that if we were not ISO Certified they ould not be doing business with us. I think it makes your clients feel good that you have a third party come in and see that you have all the puzzles in place. You are right in saying that there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from issuing a company a Cert. that says there ISO Compliant, but how do I know you are qualified to make that judgement? Who is watching over you? Where is the system of checks and balances? What is to say that you or anyone else for that matter is not going to go in charge (the mid-size company that you speak of ) them for your services and just give them a certificate stating yeah they are Compliant. I would say that atleast the Registrars (the good ones anyway) have a reputation. Once again that is just my opinion.

IP: Logged

energy
Forum Contributor

Posts: 228
From:New Britain, CT
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 04 April 2001 12:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for energy   Click Here to Email energy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
IMO..We toyed with the idea of stating we were ISO "Compliant", in a previous job. In fact, when asked via telecon if we were ISO "Certified" we would say we are compliant. Any Quality Geek worth his salt picks up on the difference immediately. The sense was that we were attempting to cash in on the ISO mantle without doing the hard work. We were then asked "when will you be certified?" It fools nobody and, in MHO, casts the company in an unfavorable light. That is, practicing deception. Hey, what do I know.

IP: Logged

Carl
unregistered
posted 04 April 2001 12:54 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
ISO Guy

You make some good points.

The company I work for is not registered as yet and the customers do not require us to be registered so loss of business in my situation is not a real concern. I try to stay away from using registration as a means to gain or keep business anyway. My feeling is, if you actually adhere to the standard, the business will probably come as a result of your quality management success. Of course I realize that some companies require registration, but I would bet they do not specify registration to an RAB accredited registrar in most cases.

As far as how would you know if I am qualified, I don't really think you know an RAB auditor, or registrar for that matter is truly qualified. Seems like a pretty gray area to me. I have worked with some very knowledgeable registrar auditors, and I have worked with some real dolts who represented very reputable firms also. Besides, if you were the customer, you would not have to believe that I was qualified. You could send in your own "qualified" auditor to check up on me as often as you liked. Keep us honest so to speak. I know it would not work for many companies, especially those which deal internationally, because it would be cost prohibitive to send someone to check up on the supplier, but for those companies that deal mostly domestic, dont require registration and have fairly regular contact, I think it is a viable solution to paying registrars a lofty fee to confirm what you already know.

"We declare we are compliant to ISO 9001 2000 and our doors remain open for your inspection" is a fairly strong statement.

IP: Logged

CarolX
Forum Contributor

Posts: 108
From:Illinois, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 04 April 2001 01:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for CarolX   Click Here to Email CarolX     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Carl,

You've brought some great points to the table. I must admit I have never been fond of the certification process. Becopming certified is no guarentee that your quality level will remain where it is. My start in the quality world began with defense contractors. We were required to comply with certain military specifications governing quality systems. The representatives from the Department of Defense would never certify a contractor, but simply state that at a particular time (pre-award or post-award of a contract) the quality system was deemed acceptable. DoD certainly knew how quickly a company could go from good to bad, so they never endorsed anyone. Which is why I have never been fond of the cetification process. We persued our certification process only because our customers asked for it. Frankly, IMHO, most companies have passed the buck, so to speak, on vendor approvals by asking their suppliers become certified. I am sure it has been benificial to large corporations with large supplier bases. And specific industries developing their own standards based on the ISO documents are great - needed to be done years ago.

More thoughts?

IP: Logged

ISO GUY
Forum Contributor

Posts: 81
From:Rochester, NY
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 04 April 2001 01:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ISO GUY   Click Here to Email ISO GUY     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Carl you say:

"Of course I realize that some companies require registration, but I would bet they do not specify registration to an RAB accredited registrar in most cases."

Carl, only Registrars that are RAB, RVA, JAB etc. accredited can issue you a certificate to ISO.
I am not saying you should get registered to keep or gain new customers that is the wrong reason to do it. You say your doors are open to you customers, and they are more than welcome to audit you. IMO, from what I have seen from our customers, they send people to audit us who are not qualified to audit.

"As far as how would you know if I am qualified, I don't really think you know an RAB auditor, or registrar for that matter is truly qualified. Seems like a pretty gray area to me."

If you do you research before selecting a Registrar you will have a good idea if they are qualified. If you feel during your Registration/Survillance audits that the auditor is not qualified you have every right to make a complaint to that Registrar or the Accreditation Board.

"Besides, if you were the customer, you would not have to believe that I was qualified. You could send in your own "qualified" auditor to check up on me as often as you liked."

IMO if you were Certified then I as a customer would feel more comfortable about your system (Depending on who your registrar is of course), which would allow me not to go thru the extra expense of auditing my suppliers.

Not all Registrars charge a "lofty" fee, I will agree however that some do charge out the waazoo!!!

IP: Logged

Carl
unregistered
posted 04 April 2001 02:19 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
All great points above.

I only disagree with one point:

ISO Guy states:
Carl, only Registrars that are RAB, RVA, JAB etc. accredited can issue you a certificate to ISO.

Show me evidence where it states that.

Maybe only registrars that are RAB, RVA, JAB
HAVE issued certificates, but I have yet to see anything that states that group xyz CAN'T issue a certificate. As long as it is not misrepresented, who is going to stop them? The RAB Police? It is understood of course that the credebility of whomever granted a certificate would be in question, but what if a sharp group of auditors got together and cut through all the bull**** and red tape and started doing serious, in depth audits and granted certification outside the RAB scheme? What if an RAB Provisional Auditor worked for a company and was willing to sign a Certificate? What if a non-RAB registered auditor who was better versed than most RAB auditors granted a certificate for his own company?

Don't take this too seriously, I am only playing Devils advocate and appreciate all your comments. I am strongly considering declaring compliance because of my situation. I realize that my situation may be unique, then again, maybe it isn't.

Thanks to all

IP: Logged

Dan Larsen
Forum Contributor

Posts: 137
From:Sussex, WI
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 04 April 2001 03:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Larsen   Click Here to Email Dan Larsen     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
There are quite a few companies that state they are compliant, some for the right reason, some for the wrong reason.

If the company self declares and actually follows all of the ISO requirements because they recognize it as a good way to manage the company AND their customers don't demand certification, only quality product on time, then the self declaration is probably for the right reason.

If the company self declares in an attempt to try to stay competitive without the cost of certification, then the reason is probably wrong.

In either case, I suggest the buyer beware when they are dealing with a self declaring company. Many companies that state they are compliant simply aren't. They often have no structured internal audit system, an ineffective (if any) internal C/PAR system, and document control issues. They often DO have a strong process control and inspection system (and produce a quality product because of it), but two elements doesn't make for compliance.

The customer can only be sure if they perform their own audit. And if I were the customer and found the self declarer lacking, I'd be concerned and probably a bit skeptical regarding future business.

On that note, I caution companies to be cautious in self declaring compliance. If your doing it for the RIGHT reasons, more power to you. If you're doing it for the wrong reasons (to make yourself look good to your customer base) then be careful you don't get caught short.

All of this is strictly opinion, of course.

IP: Logged

SteelMaiden
Forum Contributor

Posts: 28
From:NC, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 04 April 2001 04:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SteelMaiden     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
For whatever it is worth...

Once upon a time, in a land far away, I worked for a company whose customers did not care if we were ISO or QS certified. At that time, they weren't either. At that time, they all wanted us to be compliant with the standard so we upgraded our existing quality systems to conform and told them we were compliant and our doors were always open.

We had customers in almost every week to do their own audits on us. It took LOTS of time and really drained our resources to lead their auditors (and I use that term very loosely) around and basically teach them our business. We spent lots of time teaching our customers (or trying to) the difference between a requirement of the standard and an individuals wish list. Each of their auditors wanted us to do business the same way they did even though their businesses might be union ours was not, they used certain softwares, we used something else, etc., etc.

We finally said "Enough is enough, our quality system is compliant, we are tired of all the hassles." We hired a registrar, got our certificate and sent out an announcement to all the customers that had been coming in once or twice a year to "audit" us that we had gained certification and invite them to continue to come in as often as they wanted.

Our audits by customers went from 60-75 per year to one. That one came the first year and never rescheduled an audit. All of those customers still came in to visit ocassionally but they never once tried to tell us how to run our systems after certification.

Is self declaration ok? Sure, as long as you are willing to actually be compliant and defend yourself constantly to people who may or may not be qualified to assess your compliance. But in the long run we saved enough by having our people doing their jobs and not playing ringmaster for the dog and pony shows to put a really big dent in the cost of hiring a registrar.

IP: Logged

Carl
unregistered
posted 04 April 2001 04:42 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
SteelMaiden,

That is a nice bedtime story, but I am based a bit more in reality. I work for a company that makes Big $ but only has a couple of customers, only one of which would be inclined to audit. I think if the audits became too burdensome, I would simply default to the same thing I have done several times in the past with registrars, ask them to show me where it says that in the standard.

Besides, and I have to point out, I am being VERY hypothetical, what if you DID have a registration to the standard from a source other than an RAB blah, blah, blah source?

IP: Logged

Randy
Forum Wizard

Posts: 228
From:Barstow, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 04 April 2001 06:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randy   Click Here to Email Randy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
1. The last time I looked GM (a rather small inconsequential organization) was not requiring registration to ISO 14000 and accepting a self declaration to "conformance".

2. I would not have a problem putting on paper that an organization had a system in place "conforming" to the standard, if I had verifiable, objective evidence (with me doing the conformance audit as a 3rd party) to that fact. I would say that based upon my audit findings etc, etc, that XYZ's system substantially conforms to ******* (only if they really, really did of course). Then the organization could use that as well as all their other stuff in place as evidence of conformance. Some system of follow-up audits would have to be set up over an extended period, or the organization could even use a different 3rd party.

Or maybe not....some of the sharpshooters may take issue with my thoughts.

IP: Logged

ISO GUY
Forum Contributor

Posts: 81
From:Rochester, NY
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 04 April 2001 09:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ISO GUY   Click Here to Email ISO GUY     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Carl:
SteelMaiden,

I would simply default to the same thing I have done several times in the past with registrars, ask them to show me where it says that in the standard.

Besides, and I have to point out, I am being VERY hypothetical, what if you DID have a registration to the standard from a source other than an RAB blah, blah, blah source?


You are 100% correct it does not state in ISO that you have to be an Accredited Registrar.
Unless I am misunderstanding you, you say you want to be able to issue a Cert. to say a company is ISO Registered? Well thats fine you can do it but what do you have to back you up? As as customer IMLO I would look at it and say thats nice that Joe the Consultant feels you are ISO, but thats not good enough for me. I want to know who is evaluating you, as the Accredatation Boards do the Registrars. Yes even Registrars get audited by someone, and yes their auditors also must go thru a witness audit by someone from the Accredatation Board. Kind of gives the Registrar Certificate some credance. Makes me feel better knowing someone is checking up on them, whos checking on Joe the consultant that is issuing the Certificates?? Just my thoughts not saying mine are right and I am not saying yours are wrong, just a differnce of opinion.

Sorry about my spelling I know it stinks! LOL

Keep the thoughts coming I love to see what others think, thats what makes us all better is getting ideas from others in the same profession!

[This message has been edited by ISO GUY (edited 04 April 2001).]

IP: Logged

D.Scott
Forum Contributor

Posts: 37
From:Wellington, OH USA
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 05 April 2001 08:18 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for D.Scott   Click Here to Email D.Scott     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree that the current registration system is expensive and full of flaws. With the present ecconomy it would be great if there were another alternative.
I don't have a problem with the initial certification process. The system seems to be quite good through that point. I do have a problem however with the surveillance audits every 6 months. This is where registrars seem to "justify" their continuation. These justifications are usually no more than a lapse in an otherwise good system (someone didn't fill in a blank space on a form) and IMHO a complete waste of time completing a C/A. In the past, when times were good, it was just something you had to put up with as a cost of doing business. I think it is safe to say everybody can feel the slow down right now and every penny is starting to become very important. It is frustrating to watch thousands of dollars be spent to support the registrar industry when some of your employees are being laid off, or a Christmas bonus has to be cut. During the opening of our last surveillance (attended by most of our top management) our auditor commented on the slow-down in the automotive industry. He then made a very low-class comment about his company not having to worry - he would be back every 6 months. Needless to say, our VPs were asking questions about shopping registrars at our next staff meeting.
I think to just drop the system would be a mistake. The registration should be done by one of the approved groups. But I think it would be wise of the industry to consider re-evaluating the surveillance portion.
AIAG has set up a monitoring program for labs which is intended to save the high cost of registration. If I am not mistaken it is called 2pCP (Second Party Calibration Lab Program). I think the idea is to have a pool of supplier auditors trained specifically for compliance audits who would then send their reports and recommendations back to a group for approval of the facility. The only audit cost to the lab would be expenses for the auditor.
It seems to me that a similar system could be put into place for ISO/QS which might kill the goose for the registrars but it might go a long way in reducing what is becoming a burdening expense. Without the continuing high cost it might even promote registration and sound quality systems.
Dave

IP: Logged

Carl
unregistered
posted 05 April 2001 08:22 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
ISOGUY,

I agree, it would be a pretty impossible task to prove your credibility in most situations without the backing of a major player like RAB,ASQ etc.

If you had a good reputation in a fairly small area that did not deal internationally, you might pull it off though.

My situation is somewhat unique. We have one MAJOR customer and and they are not ISO. Self declaration would likely be fine with them and could save us money over the years. I think this is the first company I have worked for that it would be possible though.

I agree with you. It is much easier to accept someones credentials if someone is checking up on them and keeping them honest.

Thanks,

Carl-

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 05 April 2001 08:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think you are all missing the point. Tell me this:

1. When you require a supplier to be ISO registered, what specifically do you require (or expect) above and beyond what you expect from a non-registered supplier ('compliant' or not)?

2. Can you provide evidence that registered suppliers are giving you something non-registered companies are not? Please do not give the answer "It will give me confidence that....". We all know that's a joke.

If you're going to point out that you are audited less by customers or that you audit suppliers less - that is nothing less than a cost shift. Most of my clients tell me that registration did not significantly reduce audits by customers.

Folks - this has become nothing less than an industry. A cost of doing business.

And for those of you who think audits are subjective now, think about the future.

The changes will require an internal or external auditor to look at the organization's processes and audit them and their output as they occur, rather than audit compliance with the requirements of the standard. The new standard requires significant changes in auditing methods for both internal and external auditors. Auditing must now be more subjective and less objective, relying more upon questioning than hard evidence. This means opinions of an auditor are now more of factor than ever before.

A company wants to 'self-0certify' and they have objective evidence - possibly though internal audits and a compliance matrix - hey. Why not. I've seen plenty of companies with 'favourable' auditors/registrars which had no basis on which to be registered, not to mention compliant. I have seen a number of registered companies with major noncompliances that were simply too visible for the auditor to have missed.

Yes - it's a business whose real value is still questionable.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 05 April 2001).]

IP: Logged

Carl
unregistered
posted 05 April 2001 09:37 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Marc,

Well said.

All that I would add is that if you actually do use the standard, it is a pretty good document. The rest, including the registration process has largely become the cost of doing business.

Thanks to all

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 05 April 2001 10:14 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have no problem with the standard per se. I think it does contain what I believe to be basic, good business practices. I do not think there is a company out there who cannot say they did not profit AT ALL, even if minimally, just from the process of implementation. But as I have said in many threads here, any project will (should) open a company's eyes to things it does not see on a day-to-day business. Going to the Baldrige is a real good process for this - but we're talking some serious stuff, there. ISO is a walk in the park comparatively, IMNot-so-humbleO.

My problem is this has become nothing less than a business cost. Companies are asking suppliers to be ISO registered, but when you ask them why it's another matter.

If I am supplying you good product and you're happy, ISO isn't going to make a difference. If I'm supplying you with garbage you won't care if I'm registered - you'll stop buying from me.

For those out there who assert that ISO does help, pray tell me how. But let's hear some details.

As far as continuous improvement, if a standard has to dictate that your company 'continuously improve', then - well, I think you have a problem anyway. Continuous improvement is nothing more than evolution of products and processes. Worse, the new standard is written such that audits will now be more of an auditors opinion as to whether you're continually improving. Oh, my! Talk about subjective!

Customer focus is another silly thing. Companies that do not will not - I cite the telecos. Typically customer focus is a large part of ever companies. Heck, how many of you work in a company where marketing is not constantly looking at what customers think. How many times have engineers gotten pissed with another hair-brained suggestion from sales that was rooted in one or more customers asking for a feature?

ISO 9001 is nothing more than a business of telling other businesses minimum Good Business Practices. It is sold as something that will '...Give others confidence in...' a company which is registered. Now - what does 'Give Confidence in..." mean? Confidence in what? Does this mean you will in some way 'trust' a registered company more than one which is not? Just what will you trust that you wouldn't with an un-registered company.

If I was seeking a supplier I would ask whether they were registered but if it was to be an important supplier I'd want to visit and see what they have. Less important? Maybe send me a copy of your systems manual. Buying copy paper? Couldn't care less about their quality system.

For a company to tell me they're registered means very little in reality. Them and how may other companies. Ask them what that will buy me and I'll get the same, tired sales pitch - "...We do things consistently!" or "...We have a customer focus!" Give me a break.

End of monthly rant.

IP: Logged

MikeHilliard
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 1
From:St. Louis, MO, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 06 April 2001 10:04 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for MikeHilliard   Click Here to Email MikeHilliard     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Doesn't it all boil down to two things fellas?
#1 - your customer requires some type of "recognized certification" of your business system (not to be confused with product or service certification) if you want ot play in their backyard.
#2 - There are some visionaries in the business world who understand what effective business systems are all about. IMHO Certification, registration or accreditaion, first, second or third party are meaningless terms until there is a reason for them - meaning #1 or # 2 is in play.

IP: Logged

Carl
unregistered
posted 06 April 2001 10:53 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Mike,

I think it boils down to visionaries enterprising on your #1 and #2 points and forming entities to line their pockets with the almighty dollar, and I am not buying it.

"Mother Q never raised such a foolish child."

I and several collegues have been discussing this at depth recently. We continually hear subjective terms like "degree of compliance" and "spirit of the standard" on various forums, in print and from trainers, consultants and registrars. We are fed up with this subjective outlook on a discipline whose very foundation is based on producing evidence and we have overwhelmingly come to the same conclusion:

1. The registrars (with VERY few exceptions)know little about the standard or how to interpret it. Collectively we have worked with 7 different ones.

2. The consultants and trainers know even less. (I can't count how many of these we have worked with)

3. Considering we know more than they do, WE are the experts. We can prove it and yes, we have the credentials, ASQ and RAB registered and all the documents to back it up.

4. It is time to start thinking "out of the box" and stop paying for useless training and useless certification audits.

I say if your customer requires certification, get your system in order, declare yourself certified to the ISO 9001 2000 revision, get a plaque for 20 bucks that says "ISO 9001 2000 certified" and hang it in your lobby. If they ask for a certification number, give yourself one.

You want a visionary? How about this, my buddies and I form a group and offer ISO audits for $250.00 per day plus expenses. If it doesn't clearly state that you have to do it in the standard, then your company doesn't have to do it. We audit for a couple of days and give them a cert. The cert is good for the life of the company. (because it does not say anywhere in the standard that your system must be audited by and outside auditor or registrar and makes no reference to the auditor of your system needing any credentials whatsoever.) Actually, we don't even have to go to the company. They can e-mail us their Quality manual, procedures evidence of internal auditing and continuous improvement data and we can mail them back a certificate. Yes you too can be ISO 9001 registered for a $1000 or less!

Now THAT is visionary!

The standard is good, but the rest of the system has become ridiculous.

All of this is of course IMHO AND the HO of several other Quality Profs.

IP: Logged

energy
Forum Contributor

Posts: 228
From:New Britain, CT
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 06 April 2001 11:48 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for energy   Click Here to Email energy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Carl,
You amaze me! I just finishing reading your posts on Auditor's Certification. Now you say we can put up our own plaque and give ourselves a certification number. I have as much disdain for the system as you have, but, I don't have your moxie! Keep em coming. My sides are splitting.
energy

IP: Logged

Steven Truchon
Forum Contributor

Posts: 89
From:Fort Lauderdale, FL USA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 06 April 2001 12:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Truchon   Click Here to Email Steven Truchon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Carl, I notice that your name is "unregistered" in the forum. Is there a "point" behind that fact?
Haha

IP: Logged

Carl
unregistered
posted 06 April 2001 01:08 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Steve,

Nah, no point.

Guess I am just "unregistered" at everything.

Don't take my posts so seriously guys and gals. I just like to question things I guess.

I do not mean to offend.

Best of luck to all.

IP: Logged

energy
Forum Contributor

Posts: 228
From:New Britain, CT
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 06 April 2001 02:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for energy   Click Here to Email energy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Carl,
No offense detected. In fact, outside of very unusual, the points made are not that far fetched. I have yet to see, other than opinions, the "requirements" or lack of, disputed by facts. There are quite a few sharp cookies that inhabit this site. I enjoy the "new" perspective.
energy

IP: Logged

Randy
Forum Wizard

Posts: 228
From:Barstow, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 06 April 2001 06:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randy   Click Here to Email Randy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Way to go Carl! You've gone and repeated what I've been saying too. I never thought of a certificate though. I just figured I'd write a letter saying that conformance has been obtained.

IP: Logged

Randy
Forum Wizard

Posts: 228
From:Barstow, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 06 April 2001 06:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randy   Click Here to Email Randy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Give me a call...we might be able to do some biz.

[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 06 April 2001).]

IP: Logged

Al Dyer
Forum Wizard

Posts: 622
From:Lapeer, MI USA
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 06 April 2001 07:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Al Dyer   Click Here to Email Al Dyer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Carl,

Forgive me if I missed an earlier point in one of your (and many other) posts.

The direction of your posts under the "Registrars & Registration" forum are directed towards ISO, do your comments also apply to QS-9000 3rd edition?

I think QS-9000 is more definitive (page 119) in defining who is approved to register companies to QS-9000. (ASQ)

I tried to use the web site posted in #34 on page 119 and guess what? It is a dead page.

Guess that is not a surprise.

ASD...

IP: Logged

Carl
unregistered
posted 08 April 2001 08:32 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Al,

My exposure to QS is much more limited than ISO. My understanding is that it is similar, yet much more specific, however someone is welcome to correct me if I am wrong. To my knowledge, there is nothing in the QS standard which requires an RAB registered registrar either.

Most of the registrars (and consultants for that matter) work with both QS and ISO and the auditors that audit both are probably equally subjective in their interpretation.

I had a post about a month ago and stated that I could not understand why ISO did not make the standard less subjective when they revised it to the 2000 revision. I have since come to realize that it really isnt that subjective, we have just been brainwashed into thinking that it is. It boils down to this. If it does not SPECIFICALLY state that you have to do it in the standard, you do NOT have to do it! I have been coerced before by registrars because when they are in doing a registration audit, you do not want to risk anything by challenging their "Interpretation". I have also challenged auditors concerning their "Interpretation" and have been successful.

Although I understand, nothing is completely black and white, I think as quality professionals, it is our duty to remove as much of the gray as possible.

I am done with interpretation, I want EVIDENCE!

I don't know if this answers your questions, but if you have anything more specific, let me know, I will try.

Carl-

IP: Logged

James
unregistered
posted 09 April 2001 12:34 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Couple of questions. Are there copyright issues involved with ISO? I'm sure there must be with QS since this is an industry standard.

Secondly, Can one certify ones self? I know we all issued CofC's for product, but I also know that courts have said that a Cert of compliance is implied by shipping the product.

Being in business implies that you are working in your customer's best interest. i.e. good products, on time, and cost effective.

Any other "certification" is just so much extra.

I think of registration like baptism. "An outward sign of an inward change."

Happy to have found this board.

Thanks everyone.

IP: Logged

Steven Truchon
Forum Contributor

Posts: 89
From:Fort Lauderdale, FL USA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 09 April 2001 01:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Truchon   Click Here to Email Steven Truchon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
As far as QS9K registration requirements, in the forward to the Third Edition on page (i) of the Third Edition) it states in the first paragraph (paraphrased) that the big three requite third-party registration. In the second paragraph it mentions a database maintained by the ASQ. This database lists recognised QS9K qualified certification body/registrar offices. So for QS it appears we are directed more specifically in the standard.

I just looked through my 9K:2K draft and I am very surprised that ISO didnt state a clear requirement regarding certification by a qualified body. Oversight? I would be interested to read any accounts of a challenge to that qualified body requirement.
Meanwhile, I see potential here for a new startup business (haha)

IP: Logged

Carl
unregistered
posted 09 April 2001 02:05 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Steve,

I alluded to it earlier in this thread and I will say it again, There is NOTHING keeping companies from self REGISTERING to ISO 2000 rev. If anyone sees different, show me EVIDENCE.


I am 100% confident that I could certify most small to mid sized companies(up to about 100 employees) for $1000 to $2000 and could provide evidence that the company met all the criteria stated in the ISO 9001 2000 rev. and I would never have to step a foot inside their facility.

Your info on QS is enlightening, maybe ISO will do something similar to further lock down their theiving Monopoly on quality registration in the next revision. Maybe in 2007 or so (because you KNOW that they are not going to hold to their own procedure of taking action to reaffirm, revise, or withdraw the standard no later than five years after publication)

Anyone ever stop to think:

Who audits ISO to insure they are following their own procedures? Is the RAB registered? Is your Registrar registered?

Just thinkin' out of the box.

Carl-

IP: Logged

Randy
Forum Wizard

Posts: 228
From:Barstow, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 09 April 2001 10:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randy   Click Here to Email Randy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I really think Carl is right in his assumptions. As a 3rd party you or me or anybody else could state that an organization conforms to a given standard if objective evidence is present to prove that statement. You could make a certificate from Printshop also. Now if an organization was required to have a certificate from a recognized REGISTRAR then that would be another story.

IP: Logged

D.Scott
Forum Contributor

Posts: 37
From:Wellington, OH USA
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 10 April 2001 07:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for D.Scott   Click Here to Email D.Scott     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Speaking of ISO identifying certification bodies, I remember seeing at one time an ISO document stating that certification was not required. It was accompanied by a cartoon depicting a greedy looking magician waving a magic wand over an "ISO Cert Machine" which was being fed piles of money by an unsuspecting businessman. The machine was dispensing ISO certs out the back.

I am not real sure but I think this was part of a PDF on ISO's site used to give an overview of 14000. The sentiment may be intended for 14000 only, but from the parodistic nature of the cartoon it would seem to be a general ISO perspective.

Just an observation.

Dave

IP: Logged

Big Red
unregistered
posted 10 April 2001 11:11 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
On page 5 of the ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9000-2000 (Fundamentals and Vocabulary), it states and I quote "Third-party audits are conducted by external independent organizations. Such organizations, usually accredited, provide certification or registration of conformity with requirements such as those of ISO 9001."

I think the term "usually" says it all.

IP: Logged

Carl
unregistered
posted 10 April 2001 12:00 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Big Red,

I agree.

"Usually" says it all.

That means not always.

It does not say "SHALL BE accredited"

I say that is where my buddies and I come in. External, Independent ISO certification/registration for $2000, no need for an on site audit, registration good for the life of the company. Send me your evidence of conformance and the check, I send you your cert with my signature on it. FedEx, within 48 hours. Furthermore, I will provide proof that MY registration service IS ISO registered.

QS registration to be offered soon.

Carl-
President of Certs-R-US
A subsidary of W.DRYORS Inc. (We Dont Rip You Off Registration Services)

IP: Logged

James
unregistered
posted 10 April 2001 12:32 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Been Looking through QS-9000 3rd edition and found:

Page 5: "Conformance to QS-9000 will be evaluated using the process described in Appendix A."

Appendix A, pg 80: : "The customer shall determine the method of verification of conformance to QS-9000. The alternatives are:
* Second party (customer) assessment - refer to SQA.
* Third party (quality system certification body/registrar) assessment and registration (see appendix I)

It gets a little fuzzy at appendix I, however in the glossary I find:

Certification Body/Registrar: For this document, a certification body/registrar is a qualified organization accredited by anational accreditation body to perform.....

and

Accreditation Body: An organization with authority, typically from the national government, to accredit bodies such as certification bodies/registrars for quality system certification.....

Seems pretty cut and dry for QS anyway.

Thoughts?

IP: Logged

energy
Forum Contributor

Posts: 228
From:New Britain, CT
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 10 April 2001 12:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for energy   Click Here to Email energy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Comment: Al D's post on 4/6/01 and Steven T's post on 4/9/01 said pretty much the same thing. QS is a dead issue.

IP: Logged

Big Red
unregistered
posted 10 April 2001 01:00 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Something else that page 5 also says is "First-party audits are conducted by, or on behalf of, the organization itself for internal purposes and can form the basis for an organization's self-declaration of conformity"

IP: Logged

Carl
unregistered
posted 10 April 2001 01:41 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Aw c'mon, Give me a little time and I will come up with a way to get QS certified without the RAB that would make a Philadelphia Lawyer proud!

OK, OK, QS might be a dead issue, but I am still seriously contemplating the ISO part of it.

Carl-

IP: Logged

ISO Girl
unregistered
posted 10 April 2001 01:48 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
We are an ISO registered company. We just bought another company that we are not going to get registered. They are going to have the exact same procedures/systems as us, but for accounting reasons and probably some other legal reasons that I don't know about(we are a union company and they aren't), they are going to be our customer. But that is another story.
My questions is, if I read this correctly, because they are going to have the same systems as us, an ISO registered company, we could theoretically say that they are compliant without the hassle of a third party audit?
Am I right in this thinking, because if so, that will save me a tremendous amount of flying time.

IP: Logged

energy
Forum Contributor

Posts: 228
From:New Britain, CT
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 10 April 2001 02:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for energy   Click Here to Email energy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Red,
You state in a post previous a reference to page 5 requiring QS to have second party and third party audits. In your last post you refer to page 5 again, but this first party audit stuff appears in the ISO Standard. Correct? If so, all the more reason for Carl to insist that self declaration is allowed.
Just call D.C.M.I.C.Y, (Don't Call Me I'll Call You) for assistance with your ISO needs.
I love it!
energy
Red,
Mea Culpa on the QS Reference.
energy

[This message has been edited by energy (edited 11 April 2001).]

IP: Logged

Big Red
unregistered
posted 10 April 2001 03:00 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If you will reread my earliest post, it is in reference to page 5 of the ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q-9000 manual. NOT to be confused with the QS9000 third edition manual. I have not referenced QS at all.

IP: Logged

Carl
unregistered
posted 10 April 2001 03:10 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
ISOGIRL,

Be careful,

I am completely comfortable taking on the powers that be in the quality arena, but I have been doing it for almost 15 years. I also know of no one who can match me in arguing the ISO standards (both 1994 and 2000).

You have to keep in mind your business objectives and play the game. If your customers will accept a declaration of conformity then I say go for it. If they require actual registration, I do not think you have a choice right now but to go with an RAB registered registrar.

I would not want anyone to do something that is not in their best interest because of something I or anyone else has written on this forum.

Check with your customers first. If it is acceptable to them, then you can save yourself a lot of $$, If it isn't and you have to go the registrar route, get ready to pay because registration is site specific to all the registrars I have worked with.

Keep checking back though, I may just Give Randy (from the thread above) a call and we can start a non-RAB registration company up on both coasts (I am on the East Coast) and work our way toward the middle of the US.

Best of luck.

Carl-

IP: Logged

Carl
unregistered
posted 10 April 2001 03:28 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Big Red,

As long as you are not claiming certification to Q 9000-2000 it does not matter.

The ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9001-2000 standard that everyone will be audited against has no provision that states you must adhere to Q9000. It only states "ISO 9000 and ISO 9004 have been taken into consideration during the development of the standard."

On the next page it references that it is "aligned with ISO 14001:1996" You don't have to adhere to any of that standard either.

The only actual requirements stated are contained in Q9001-2000.

What do you think?

Carl

IP: Logged

Big Red
unregistered
posted 10 April 2001 04:05 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You can't be certified to Q9000-2000. It is only a "dictionary" of terminology used in Q9001-2000.
I agree with you. Q9000-2000 is a reference guide. It is not a standard anymore. The reason that I referenced it was to make a point that it does not say that a 3rd party auditor has to be accredited.

IP: Logged

Al Dyer
Forum Wizard

Posts: 622
From:Lapeer, MI USA
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 10 April 2001 05:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Al Dyer   Click Here to Email Al Dyer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My guess is that in the end, companies that want a supplier to be certified by a "third" party will start putting in their contracts, terms, and conditions which "third" parties are acceptable to them.

MHO

ASD...

IP: Logged

CarolX
Forum Contributor

Posts: 108
From:Illinois, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 11 April 2001 10:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for CarolX   Click Here to Email CarolX     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Carl,

First I want to say thanks for a great thread. This discussion is enlightening and I beleive evolutionary.

Second - I'm in the Midwest - want to open an office here?? LOL

CarolX

IP: Logged

Carl
unregistered
posted 11 April 2001 01:20 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
CarolX,

Absolutely! I would say you are our VP of Midwest operations. Randy is obviously our West Coast VP, may as well make him CEO of operations also because he jumped in first.

Hey gang, after reading ISOGUY's posting on the $2000 dollar fee for his registrar providing a Certificate, I was thinking we may as well charge for that service too. How does $5 bucks sound? I figure that would make it about......hmmmm...... $4 profit?

So grand total for registration of a 50 employee company would be about $2004.00.

I figure anyone remotely familiar with the standard can go through the evidence in about 5 hours. 20% back into the business (for our yearly meeting in Maui)

How does $320.00 per hour sound to everyone for wages?

What do you think?

Carl-

IP: Logged

energy
Forum Contributor

Posts: 228
From:New Britain, CT
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 11 April 2001 03:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for energy   Click Here to Email energy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Carl,
I assume you have the Northeast covered? I can work nights, with a 70% premium. We begin ISO registration preparation tomorrow with a consultant. (An 11 month program)As the Mgt. Rep, we are working very close. I am going to have some fun with him over this thread. We've already clashed over some interpretation of the standard. I resisted, partially by remembering some of the posts on this site. He has always capitulated. I know it's more than a customer/client relationship because he's from the old school. (Retired QA Professional)
Later,
energy

IP: Logged

Carl
unregistered
posted 11 April 2001 04:03 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Energy,

Share the wealth! I always say.

I am in the Northeast, but there is probably PLENTY to go around!

There is only one book that I feel is subject to interpretation. The ISO standard is not it. Good luck and be careful with the registrar, I wouldn't want you to get in trouble.

If it comes down to it, ask him where it states in the standard that it is subject to ANYONE'S Interpretation. It isn't.

Best of luck, if I can help, let me know.

Carl-

IP: Logged

Randy
Forum Wizard

Posts: 228
From:Barstow, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 11 April 2001 07:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randy   Click Here to Email Randy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hey Carl thanks. I knew this MBA I'm working on would pay off.

IP: Logged

Dan Larsen
Forum Contributor

Posts: 137
From:Sussex, WI
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 13 April 2001 04:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Larsen   Click Here to Email Dan Larsen     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Carl,

Though I was a bit dubious about this whole idea at first, I've given it some thought and maybe you have a hit. I just may have to fight with Carol for the midwest market. But then again, maybe there'd be enough for two!

Dan

IP: Logged

Randy
Forum Wizard

Posts: 228
From:Barstow, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 13 April 2001 06:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randy   Click Here to Email Randy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'll trade my rights to Nevada for Arkansas & Missouri.

This is the hottest topic on the board!!

[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 13 April 2001).]

IP: Logged

CarolX
Forum Contributor

Posts: 108
From:Illinois, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 16 April 2001 09:16 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for CarolX   Click Here to Email CarolX     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dan,

I am sure there would be for two!!!

Carol

IP: Logged

Steven Truchon
Forum Contributor

Posts: 89
From:Fort Lauderdale, FL USA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 18 April 2001 07:10 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Truchon   Click Here to Email Steven Truchon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I too was a bit leary (not to be confused with timothy) of the concept and after much thought and recalling my inherent rebellious nature I admit I like the idea - LOL.

Consider this my bid for a southeast territory!

IP: Logged

Sam
Forum Contributor

Posts: 244
From:
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 18 April 2001 08:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sam   Click Here to Email Sam     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
A little bit of history as best as I can remember)

- Self certification was discussed considerably during the mid and late eighties, as we now know those with the loudest voice convinced others that 3rd party certification was the only way to go.

- As early as 1987 the Federal Government was condsidering ISO-9000 as a replacement for MIL-Q-9858.

- MIL-Q was obsoleted in the nineties

Not being involved in Government contracting anymore I'm not sure of what followed.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 18 April 2001 08:53 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Continued at: https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum9/HTML/000055.html

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Open Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic   Hop to:

Contact Us | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!


Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!