Informational Re-engineering of the IAF Accreditation and the Management System Certification Processes

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Sidney Vianna said:

If you pay attention to the presentations provided via the IATF on this subject, they are very happy with the TS 16949 certification process, vis a vis the significant quality improvement of the automotive supply chain. Their assessment, not mine. They seem to be happy with how the process is working in their sector.

Click to expand...

I was thinking about automotive and other industries just a few days ago. Instead of my usual rants, I was thinking of how much better automotive is, compared to other industries. They really have accomplished a lot, inspite of all the negatives we discuss here on the Forum.

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Paul Simpson said:

It comes down to who you believe the users of certification are:

• Certified companies
• Their customers - the purchasers of products and services

Each of these groups has a different agenda. The customers may want certification to give them conforming product or services at lower cost. Playing devil's advocate - the certified companies may believe they can "do" quality on their own and want their certification at lowest cost / least hassle.

Click to expand...

Yes. The expectations of the certified organizations and their customers (and other stakeholders) are, many times, very different. But, in my mind, there is no question on who the users of 3rd party certificates are.
The certified organizations are the buyers of registrar services, not the users, even though they (the certified organization) can benefit significantly from the service provision.

That is exactly my point. To this date, accreditors and, to an extent, the buyers of certification services are influencing the design of the accreditation process. Until the actual users of the process demand the changes that will bring about confidence and trust, the accredited certification process will falter.

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Sidney Vianna said:

If you pay attention to the presentations provided via the IATF on this subject, they are very happy with the TS 16949 certification process, vis a vis the significant quality improvement of the automotive supply chain. Their assessment, not mine. They seem to be happy with how the process is working in their sector.

Click to expand...

Now Sidney! I am sure you know I understand the difference between paying attention and viewing any communications from any authoritative body. I also know not to take stuff at face value.

I have yet to see any facts that support the argument that TS is working - unless anyone on the cove has some?

Let me put this all another (cynical) way.

• The AIAG were not happy with certification to QS (a scheme developed by them but accredited by the current IAF members) so they decided to use the IATF
• The IATF is very happy with the TS certification process accredited by ... er .... the IATF
• An IATF contact has confirmed (informally) that they are not happy with the process but are happier having a smaller number of CBs to "manage"

Helmut Jilling said:

Guys, I think your comments and debate back and forth may apply to some of the ISO 9001 auditors. Some of the ISO guys I meet are somewhat limited in broad experience.

However, most of the TS guys i meet have a pretty good bit of depth and experience. Some registrars are better than others, and there are some weak folks out there, but many/most I meet provide good product. Better than the average ISO guys, on the whole.

Click to expand...

Not in my experience. I have seen some TS qualified auditors at first hand and wouldn't give them house room. I'm sure there are some about but have yet to meet them!

I could give you some horror stories (including some "blue chip" CBs) .... :mg:

There is a general lack of systems thinking about the whole system of implementation, assessment, certification and accreditation. It is all characterized by a lack of ownership:
"I'm OK - it's everyone else!"

FWIW I will own up to being part of the problem - I just hope to be part of the solution!

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Sidney Vianna said:

Yes. The expectations of the certified organizations and their customers (and other stakeholders) are, many times, very different. But, in my mind, there is no question on who the users of 3rd party certificates are.
The certified organizations are the buyers of registrar services, not the users, even though they (the certified organization) can benefit significantly from the service provision.

Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe both groups are stakeholders in accredited certification and there are others - the standards developers for one.

The way I see it the certified company is interested in:

• The CB / Registrar processes (simple & straightforward)
• A fair assessment of their management system
• The benefits an independent view gives them
• Opportunities for improvement
• Improvement resulting from effective maintenance of their systems
• Recognition of their system by a recognized body (deliberately last)

The certified company's customer is interested in:

• Their supplier having a robust management system to deliver product and service consistently
• An input to their supplier approval process

Sidney Vianna said:

That is exactly my point. To this date, accreditors and, to an extent, the buyers of certification services are influencing the design of the accreditation process. Until the actual users of the process demand the changes that will bring about confidence and trust, the accredited certification process will falter.

Click to expand...

Some users of certification (who may be certified themselves and dealing with certified suppliers as well) are the ones driving the ABs. Their dissatisfaction with certification (my guess is of their suppliers) is leading them to use the voice they have with the ABs to require changes.

Whether this is data based I cannot comment.

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

I was wondering... if the automotive companies are satisfied with the results of TS16949 systems certified suppliers, why do they still have a gazillion other customer specifics, and parallel systems such as Ford Q1. Plus their own core tools in addition to the AIAG core tools. I also think the word "robust" has been a misnomer bandied about by some buzz word junkies, when "effective" more accurately describes the system. I like my coffee "robust".

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Paul Simpson said:

I have yet to see any facts that support the argument that TS is working - unless anyone on the cove has some?

Click to expand...

Look at the last slide of the presentation by Joe Bransky, during the IAF Industry Day in San Francisco.

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

ralphsulser said:

I was wondering... if the automotive companies are satisfied with the results of TS16949 systems certified suppliers, why do they still have a gazillion other customer specifics, and parallel systems such as Ford Q1. Plus their own core tools in addition to the AIAG core tools.

Click to expand...

Because all of these collective requirements are perceived to add value, from the OEM's perspective. That would be my guess.

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Sidney Vianna said:

Look at the last slide of the presentation by Joe Bransky, during the IAF Industry Day in San Francisco.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Sidney. I have looked. Now what information is it you would like me to assess?

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Paul Simpson said:

Thanks, Sidney. I have looked. Now what information is it you would like me to assess?

Click to expand...

Those are the benefits reported by the automotive OEMs in support of the TS certification process. So, contrary to your assertion that there are no facts to show that the TS process is better than the others, this sector is reporting significant gains. Once again: their assessment, not mine.

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Sidney Vianna said:

Those are the benefits reported by the automotive OEMs in support of the TS certification process. So, contrary to your assertion that there are no facts to show that the TS process is better than the others, this sector is reporting significant gains. Once again: their assessment, not mine.

Click to expand...

Ok. I'm not going to get into a long drawn out debate. My take is that the accreditation authority is telling the world about how good the scheme they have designed and implemented is.

My experience tells me different but are, like the presentation, anecdotal. There are no facts for me to base my decisions on. (Principle No. 7)