Both, actually.
Interesting Discussion Is the IAF drinking in the last chance saloon? - Update June 2022
- Thread starter Paul Simpson
- Start date
Paul Simpson
Trusted Information Resource
Sorry, guys. I'm going to have to disagree with you both. ISO 9001 as not been trivialized (or not with any justification) as the standard requirements are just as powerful as they ever were. Remember the defence of the 'concrete life preserver' argument. I just found one example of a pretty irate me in 2005 - Here. The same still applies. If ISO 9001 is any danger of being trivialzed it is because the assessment and certification process is so variable. Believe it or not I was around in 3rd party certification when the first (I believe) accreditation body was born - out of a CB. A group of CBs got together with the UK government of the time and decided they needed some standards and common processes for CBs. We just seem to have gone backwards!
As for ISO 9001 being too general - again no way. The whole power of a generic management system standard is that it is ulimately flexible depending on your market and policy. So if:
- Your customer has strict requirements
- Your own organisation has stringent requirements
Sorry, guys. I'm going to have to disagree with you both. ISO 9001 as not been trivialized (or not with any justification) as the standard requirements are just as powerful as they ever were. Remember the defence of the 'concrete life preserver' argument. I just found one example of a pretty irate me in 2005 - Here. The same still applies. If ISO 9001 is any danger of being trivialzed it is because the assessment and certification process is so variable. Believe it or not I was around in 3rd party certification when the first (I believe) accreditation body was born - out of a CB. A group of CBs got together with the UK government of the time and decided they needed some standards and common processes for CBs. We just seem to have gone backwards!
As for ISO 9001 being too general - again no way. The whole power of a generic management system standard is that it is ulimately flexible depending on your market and policy. So if:... hey they are now requirements of your management system - do what you have to do to satisfy them!
- Your customer has strict requirements
- Your own organisation has stringent requirements
Paul,
Thank you for your passionate reponse!
However in my post I asked:
Note that I phrased my concerns as questions, not as definite statements because I do not disagree with the intent...I am just questioning myself and also others where all this should lead in a world where the value of Standards and Certification is questioned.
I am as passionate as you are...but again...I listen to what's going on around me...
Stijloor.
Paul Simpson
Trusted Information Resource
OK, Jan. :truce: I didn't spot the subtlety of the language. I hope my response was enough to say what I think. Now, having asked the question, what do you think?Paul,
Thank you for your passionate reponse!
However in my post I asked:
Note that I phrased my concerns as questions, not as definite statements because I do not disagree with the intent...I am just questioning myself and also others where all this should lead in a world where the value of Standards and Certification is questioned.
I am as passionate as you are...but again...I listen to what's going on around me...
Stijloor.
How many "knowledgeable" Covers repeatedly state something to the effect of: "you just need to document what you do..."
The standard has been trivialized because many implementators and consultants never went past chapter 1 of ISO 9001 for dummies. Certainly the low caliber of many auditors associated with the blind emphasis on compliance to requirements did not help either.
The TC 176 SC 1(?) should seriously look at the upcoming AS9101 Rev. D document, which will refocus audits on assessing for effectiveness. A game changer.
OK, Jan. :truce: I didn't spot the subtlety of the language. I hope my response was enough to say what I think. Now, having asked the question, what do you think?
That's OK Paul, no problem...
In this thread, I expressed various concerns:
- Post #15, The obligation of the Organization.
- Post #17, The financial connection Registrar/CB and their Clients.
- Post #32, The possible devaluation of ISO 9001.
Post #17: Somehow, the financial dependency of the Registrars/CB's on their clients could be changed. Because to be honest, not many will "bite the hands that feed them." Ideally, Registrars/CB's could be paid by an independent organization that collects funds from registered organizations. They could set decent rates thus preventing fee wars that devaluate their certification/registration services. I know, this goes square against the free entrprise system, so highly valued in the USA, but I see no other solution at this time.
Post #32: We as Trainers, Consultants, Auditors have an ethical obligation to become more, or remain vigilant in the quality message we're supposed to send to our Clients. What often frustrates
me here at The Cove Forums are discussions about how you can get away with things and still pass an audit. Example: the 2-Page Quality Manual.... The minimalist approach. So if we agree that ISO 9001 has not lost its bite, we have to ensure that the teeth remain sharp...Just my
on a snowy Monday morning in NC.Stijloor.
Colin
Quite Involved in Discussions
<snip>....
Post #32: We as Trainers, Consultants, Auditors have an ethical obligation to become more, or remain vigilant in the quality message we're supposed to send to our Clients. What often frustrates
Stijloor, I couldn't agree more with this statement. There appears to be an army of people (consultants among them) who seem to spend their time trying to find ways of technically complying with the requirements whilst doing very little to achieve quality.
It is very frustrating auditing these organisations when it is clear that they don't really understand what is going on and all the while the consultant sits there with a smug grin and saying "it complies".
Thanks, Howard.
The thread you linked actually contains some of my thoughts and concerns about the state of the accredited certification process, especially instances of representatives from the CB community invoking all disclaimers on why they should not be responsible for the performance of their client's certified systems. Where is accountability? We need to transform this process so consultants and CB's are kept (partially) accountable for the performance of the system they are involved with.
Exactly. Many consultants see their jobs as helping a client pass an audit, rather than implementing robust, business-supporting, customer focused processes.
How many consulting organizations boast as their primary selling point something to the effect of 100% certification records?
Last edited:
J
JaneB
There appears to be an army of people (consultants among them) who seem to spend their time trying to find ways of technically complying with the requirements whilst doing very little to achieve quality.
It is very frustrating auditing these organisations when it is clear that they don't really understand what is going on and all the while the consultant sits there with a smug grin and saying "it complies".
Frustrating? I can just imagine. And unethical, and pointless and such a sheer waste of everyone's time on having a 'system' like that (and I use the term very loosely!!) when it could and should be so much more.
As a counterpoint, I've experienced on a few occasions the opposite problem: having the auditor come in to a system that doesn't conform to 'ye bog standard everyday model' - but which suits the organisation to a T. But yes, it's not your usual one, and not one that a lazy or not very competent auditor is familiar with and accustomed to seeing. And it can be immensely frustrating pointing out, over and over, that while it may not conform to the norm (eg, not the 'standard quality manual' he's used to, or a different approach to CAPA) yes, it does comply - but takes a bit more effort and competency to audit!'
But I agree with Paul that it's a problem with the implementation not the Standard.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
- Poll
