Re: ISO 10002:2004 implementation roadmap
As for the standard being "not for certification." Although my CB has no plans for offering certification to these standards I do wonder why ISO expends so much of "our" time and effort in developing standards that seek to provide guidance and then specifically states - "not intended for certification". Why? Surely anyone who gets any value form the standard in whatever way is just recovering some of the development costs.
SNIP......
Now Sidney, you're not just trying to sling mud at a major competitor are you?
Well Paul, if you follow this thread, you will see that someone else found about the ISO 10002 certificates. I have to admit I was surprised about it. I did not expect to see CB's offering certification to a document which states to the contrary. If you think it makes sense to have systems certified to a guidance standard, you should be offering certification to ISO 9004, as well. A gimmick that has been tried a number of times, with no success. When ISO releases the
ISO/TS 10004 Quality management -- Customer satisfaction -- Guidelines for monitoring and measuring document should organizations seek certification against that, as well?
Concerning the mud slinging comment: To question when competitors issue certificates against a non-certifiable document is mud-slinging? Can't I question some practices that seem out of place, from my perspective? You proposed (a number of times) a "name & shame thread", but you infer that I am the one badmouthing competitors?
Most of the documents under the
ISO 9000 family of documents are guidance documents, which contain suggestions and advice, through the use of the word should, instead of auditable, verifiable requirements with their "shalls and musts". If we do have problems with credibility and heterogeneity of conformity assessments to auditable standards, imagine what happens when you have attestations of conformity to guidance documents....
One of the enduring criticisms (which I agree with) on "all things ISO 9000" is the blind focus on certification. Whatever comes as a guidance document is, for the most part, ignored. Wait until you guys finish ISO 10018.....
Unfortunately, most CB's are mono-thinkers. They see certification as the only answer, thus, they certify whomever to whatever (as long as they get paid), even in cases when the standard itself states that is not meant to be used for certification purposes.
There are other delivery roles, modes of engagement, outside of the "traditional" certification protocol. But when your only tool is a hammer, every problem resembles a nail. The CB community needs visionary leaders to find new answers. Certification is NOT the only answer.
Yesterday, I delivered a webinar on ISO 10002 and described how my employer can assist an organization in using ISO 10002. And it is not via a certification approach.
). The mere act of putting "not intended for certification" of itself means nothing.
