Q
Interesting Discussion Is the IAF drinking in the last chance saloon? - Update June 2022
- Thread starter Paul Simpson
- Start date
Q
qualitymanager
I agree with this - it's a case of mis-information. The person complaining about 'bad' product does not understand ISO 9001.
Annoyed? Damaging the ISO brand? What about the millions of Swiss francs ISO has been able to pocket because of the certification schemes associated with some of their standards? As I mentioned numerous times, without a certification scheme associated with, most standards (including ISO standards) are destined to oblivion!
I don't see how ISO could bypass the IAF established scheme via copyright protection, either. And, what are the guarantees that an ISO certification process would be less dysfunctional than the current one? One has to remember that ISO, just like the IAF, is a organization that depends on voluntary participation by other member organizations that possess the knowledge.
I have already provided the solution for management system certification sustainability: it involves accountability at all levels. The kind of accountability we don't see much, anywhere. The kind of accountability that, when lacking, brings the whole world economy down and everyone suffers.
While compliance (and possible certification to) with ISO 9001 has never been intended as defect-free, or higher grade products, ISO 9001 has always been about customer satisfaction. If "ISO 9001 compliant organizations" are doing lip service to keeping customer happy and ensuring the products they place in the market are in compliance with applicable legal requirements, then they don't truly comply with the intent of the standard.
Related threads:
Do consumers really care about ISO 9001:2000 certification?
ISO 9001:2000 – What does it mean in the supply chain?
Friends,
Great posts! I enjoy reading them.
ISO, ANSI, ANAB, IAF, whatever standards or other organization you want to throw in the fray...one thing has become very clear to me....
The success of any company depends on how well they take care of their customers and how they choose to operate their business in an ethical manner.
Stijloor.
Great posts! I enjoy reading them.
ISO, ANSI, ANAB, IAF, whatever standards or other organization you want to throw in the fray...one thing has become very clear to me....
The success of any company depends on how well they take care of their customers and how they choose to operate their business in an ethical manner.
Stijloor.
Last edited:
D
Duke Okes
Granted, some of the problem is confusion about the role of the ISO standards, and the degree to which they will prevent nonconforming product from reaching the customer.
However, we must also admit that there has been inadequate control over registrars. Ask this question: Do you know a registrar who knowingly does not hold clients to the intent of the standard? I certainly do, and several companies who have switched registrars do also. Why is such a registrar still in business, and what does this do to the ISO (registration) brand?
However, we must also admit that there has been inadequate control over registrars. Ask this question: Do you know a registrar who knowingly does not hold clients to the intent of the standard? I certainly do, and several companies who have switched registrars do also. Why is such a registrar still in business, and what does this do to the ISO (registration) brand?
Duke, as you and I know--and this has been the topic of many discussions here at The Cove--there are companies that only care about a cert on the lobby wall. Some of our clients initiate the conversation with: "I need to get certified." Not: "I would like to improve my business."
Have you heard that too?As far as Registrar/CB performance is concerned, as long as they have a supplier (second-party) relationship with the companies they're supposed to hold to task in a third-party manner, that's not going to change I'm afraid... Right or wrong, they have a need to survive.
Stijloor.
Paul Simpson
Trusted Information Resource
Firstly, Sidney I agree to your reply to Marc's post. ISO 9001 certification could never be a guarantee for 100% defect free product - there isn't enough time and effort spent on the registered company to do that. It should, however, be more of an indicator of product conformity than it is. After all, if we subscribe to the process approach a product is the output of a process and:
You also have to get quality back on the agenda in the boardroom so that the CEO is not willing to accept 'Quality Lite' but is prepared to expend the time and effort in a system that works.
Deming had it right - there are no easy fixes - you have to understand the process and work on reducing the varation that leads to non-conformance - and 85% is down to management.
- for the registered organisation, if their processes are managed effectively good product should consistently be winging its way to their customers
- for certification bodies the assessment and certification process should reliably give us registered organisations that can (in turn) be relied upon
OK, here's my take (and I do accept the point about ISO having made a lot of money from 9001): If your product is constantly being attacked as being no good how much longer do you think people will continue to buy the product? If the fault is with the distributors (CBs, certified organisations) would you not want to do something about that distribution chain?
I agree in general and I don't believe there are any attempts to do away with certification - just to make it better. Which is, I hope something we all want.
OK, Sidney. You probably have a better understaning of copyright law than me but there are many ways ISO could take over the 'policing' of 3rd party certification. Look what the IATF has done. You mentioned IAF is a volunteer organisation - true, but only volunteers from organisations who want to influence IAF - paid employees of the accreditation bodies plus a few others. There are no guarantees that an 'ISO' process would be any better but IMHO it would be hard for it to be any worse.
Agree totally with you on this one, Sidney. We have had a lot of discussions to this effect over the years. I have said all along that you have to get to the source of the QMS implementation - the quality managers, educators, trainers and consultants. To make sure they understand quality and management systems so that people don't think an identikit manual is a quality system.
You also have to get quality back on the agenda in the boardroom so that the CEO is not willing to accept 'Quality Lite' but is prepared to expend the time and effort in a system that works.
Deming had it right - there are no easy fixes - you have to understand the process and work on reducing the varation that leads to non-conformance - and 85% is down to management.
J
JaneB
I imagine you meant 'how well they take care of their customers?' and not take off their customers?
J
JaneB
Really good post, Paul, and what a great topic to bring up! Thanks for raising it.
Indeed yes - when it's there, it really does work. When it's not... nothing can make up for it. Absolutely nothing.
I think Marc makes a really valid point about most people not distinguishing between a standards body and a regulatory body. OK, those of us who are insiders do know how it works... but the broad perception is, and remains, as Marc says.
Me definitely.
Indeed yes - when it's there, it really does work. When it's not... nothing can make up for it. Absolutely nothing.
I think Marc makes a really valid point about most people not distinguishing between a standards body and a regulatory body. OK, those of us who are insiders do know how it works... but the broad perception is, and remains, as Marc says.
Similar threads
- Poll
