Is there any kind of Ranking available for selecting the Registrars?

Sidney Vianna said:

Thanks, but this paper is even more useless than the one that I linked to. When you reach a conclusion of what value does this study bring? Whomever funded this study should ask for a refund, IMO.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree. When you start getting into academic research on any subject, you need to be prepared to do a lot of searching and reading. I was just providing some contrast, even if the substance (of both) is questionable.

LexieB said:

Specifically: Does anyone else find it odd that the registrar system is rather convoluted? If you don't think it's convoluted, please explain how I know whether or not a registrar is credible?

Also, I said I have not seen any real studies showing HOW ISO improves efficiency, costs, etc. Can anyone point me to some?

Click to expand...

I tried to create interest here two years ago in creating some data on how ISO has benefitted companies and got few takers.

As an auditor, due to confidentiality, all I can offer is anecdotal observations (sorry, Jim).

I usually have about 60 clients at a time. I have argued for years that the clients that I work with routinely demonstrate clear financial and quality improvements over time. I am a definite fan of the ISO programs IF they are implemented and really used. If they are window dressing, this does not apply.

This year, with all the turmoil in the markets, all of my clients have survived thus far, and most are staying in the black, even if only by a little bit. There is a lot of pain, but they are making it.

About 10 are actually doing well, and 3 are even working some Saturdays. Many or even most of them, would credit their ISO programs as helping to achieve their results.

Not a formal study, but real world from the trenches, and not as obtuse as the 2 studies cited.

Helmut Jilling said:

I tried to create interest here two years ago in creating some data on how ISO has benefitted companies and got few takers.

As an auditor, due to confidentiality, all I can offer is anecdotal observations (sorry, Jim).

I usually have about 60 clients at a time. I have argued for years that the clients that I work with routinely demonstrate clear financial and quality improvements over time. I am a definite fan of the ISO programs IF they are implemented and really used. If they are window dressing, this does not apply.

This year, with all the turmoil in the markets, all of my clients have survived thus far, and most are staying in the black, even if only by a little bit. There is a lot of pain, but they are making it.

About 10 are actually doing well, and 3 are even working some Saturdays. Many or even most of them, would credit their ISO programs as helping to achieve their results.

Not a formal study, but real world from the trenches, and not as obtuse as the 2 studies cited.

Click to expand...

I really don't want to start this whole thing over again, but two points:

1. One thing I've noticed in discussions of this subject is the fact that the people most likely to tout performance advantages are people who have a vested interest in selling services related to certification. This is just an observation, and not intended as a personal affront or slur.
2. The point I keep going back to is that it's not enough to show that a certified company (or many certified companies) showed improved performance (fiscally or otherwise) after ISO registration. You have to be able to demonstrate a direct cause-and-effect relationship, and show that the results would have been different without the certification. In other words, many companies that have improved after certification would have improved anyway had their leadership decided that improvement was going to happen. Also, when comparing the performance of companies with and without certification, if certified companies tend to be better than their non-certified counterparts, they might have already been better before certification.

Jim Wynne said:

I really don't want to start this whole thing over again, but two points:

1. One thing I've noticed in discussions of this subject is the fact that the people most likely to tout performance advantages are people who have a vested interest in selling services related to certification. This is just an observation, and not intended as a personal affront or slur.

Click to expand...

I agree I have a vested interest. But, as an auditor, I am in a front row chair to see the results across many dozens of companies, whereas most people only get to see their company's performance. I agree it is anecdotal observation, not empirical evidence, but it is still valid to a degree, and at least as good as those obtuse reports mentioned in this thread.

1. The point I keep going back to is that it's not enough to show that a certified company (or many certified companies) showed improved performance (fiscally or otherwise) after ISO registration. You have to be able to demonstrate a direct cause-and-effect relationship, and show that the results would have been different without the certification. In other words, many companies that have improved after certification would have improved anyway had their leadership decided that improvement was going to happen. Also, when comparing the performance of companies with and without certification, if certified companies tend to be better than their non-certified counterparts, they might have already been better before certification.

Click to expand...

Sure, but industrial life is not that black and white. That would be like saying that my neighbor joined a gym and lost weight and got buff, but, since he was motivated, he might have had some of the same improvements without the membership. Sure, he might have, but what he and the gym is touting is that before he was chubby, and now he is trim and buff.

When you see many companies do this program, and they get better performance and quality, then it is fair to draw a cause and effect conclusion. Sure, it is possible to improve without ISO, my brother's company has done that, but it can be said that many companies have derived very definite benefits from using ISO. Unless someone ponies up a million bucks to do an empirical study, that info is as good as we are going to get for now. But, it is worthwhile info, nonetheless. Not everything in life will be empirical.

LexieB said:

Specifically: Does anyone else find it odd that the registrar system is rather convoluted? If you don't think it's convoluted, please explain how I know whether or not a registrar is credible?

Click to expand...

(broken link removed) the following criteria:

When choosing a certification body to carry out ISO 9001:2000 (or ISO 9001:2008) or ISO 14001:2004 certification, these are the aspects the organization needs to take into account.

• The first point is that an organization can implement ISO 9001:2000 (or ISO 9001:2008) or ISO 14001:2004 without seeking certification. The best reason for wanting to implement the standards is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of company operations. Certification of the management system is not an ISO 9001:2000 (or ISO 9001:2008) or ISO 14001:2004 requirement.
• Deciding to have an independent audit of the system to confirm that it conforms to ISO 9001:2000 (or ISO 9001:2008) or ISO 14001:2004 is a decision to be taken on business grounds: for example
  • if it is a contractual or regulatory requirement
  • if it is a market requirement or to meet customer preferences
  • if it falls within the context of a risk management programme
  • or if the organization thinks it will motivate staff by setting a clear goal for the development of its management system.
• Criteria to consider include:
• evaluate several certification bodies
• bear in mind that the cheapest might prove to be the most costly if its auditing is below standard, or if its certificate is not recognized by the organization's customers
• establish whether the certification body has auditors with experience in the organization's sector of activity
• establish whether the certification body implements, or is migrating toISO/IEC 17021:2006, Conformity assessment – Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems
• Another point to clarify is whether or not the certification body has been accredited and, if so, by whom. Accreditation, in simple terms, means that a certification body has been officially approved as competent to carry out certification in specified business sectors by a national accreditation body.

In most countries, accreditation is a choice, not an obligation and the fact that a certification body is not accredited does not, by itself, mean that it is not a reputable organization. For example, a certification body operating nationally in a highly specific sector might enjoy such a good reputation that it does not feel there is any advantage for it to go to the expense of being accredited. That said, many certification bodies choose to seek accreditation, even when it is not compulsory, in order to be able to demonstrate an independent confirmation of their competence.
The list of accreditation bodies with their contact information and links to their Web sites can be found on the Internet site of the International Accreditation Forum (www.iaf.nu), under "Members" > "Accreditation members". In general, accreditation bodies' Web sites contain an up-to-date list of certification bodies that they have accredited which can be used for selecting a certification body.

Click to expand...

Some people would also associate the "caliber" of a registrar with the quality of information their representatives provide here at The Cove. There are a few of us, driven by transparency, who clearly disclose our professional affiliations. Others lurk in the shadows, afraid of engaging in any intelligent exchange.

There are a few of us who clearly show how differently we operate. How well we are involved with Industry issues and how much we communicate with our clients and other stakeholders. Others offer you a free quote...

I did my own ranking once, many, many years ago - the criteria I used was:

Simplicity of the quoting process; number of fees and/or other hidden costs; overall responsivness of the registrar to questions and quotes; willingness to make a personal visit (of the 17 CBs that I reviewed, only the ones who actually came to visit me made my initial short list); National and International reputation (you pick an off-shore company that does not have and can not get an ANAB acredition - that reflects on your own company image; Over all Value, etc.


I ended up with a short-short list of 4: LRQ, BSI, SGS & DNV. I picked one of those, and have since used them three more times.

QualityBob said:

I did my own ranking once, many, many years ago - the criteria I used was:

Simplicity of the quoting process; number of fees and/or other hidden costs; overall responsiveness of the registrar to questions and quotes; willingness to make a personal visit (of the 17 CBs that I reviewed, only the ones who actually came to visit me made my initial short list); National and International reputation (you pick an off-shore company that does not have and can not get an ANAB accreditation - that reflects on your own company image; Over all Value, etc.

Click to expand...

Have you done it since, Bob?

QualityBob said:

I did my own ranking once, many, many years ago - the criteria I used was:

Simplicity of the quoting process; number of fees and/or other hidden costs; overall responsivness of the registrar to questions and quotes; willingness to make a personal visit (of the 17 CBs that I reviewed, only the ones who actually came to visit me made my initial short list); National and International reputation (you pick an off-shore company that does not have and can not get an ANAB acredition - that reflects on your own company image; Over all Value, etc.


I ended up with a short-short list of 4: LRQ, BSI, SGS & DNV. I picked one of those, and have since used them three more times.

Click to expand...

Interesting to me that you left out Smithers Quality Assessments. They have developed a very high national reputation, and do make onsite sales calls. Which is why I selected to affiliate with them. Did you miss a valuable entry to your short list...?

Helmut Jilling said:

Interesting to me that you left out Smithers Quality Assessments. They have developed a very high national reputation, and do make onsite sales calls. Which is why I selected to affiliate with them. Did you miss a valuable entry to your short list...?

Click to expand...

I was thinking the same, Helmut...only for NQA...

I'm interested in knowing what weight having a visit adds.

Word of mouth always seems like a great way to get information. So can anyone tell me the registrars that they have used and what you liked about them or what you disliked. I am interviewing registrars but I have heard some good things about some registrars, and I have heard some bad things. I want the right company and I want a company that I am not going to want to beat my head into a wall with.

I have been through a couple of registrars with a previous job, but I want options.

If you feel as though you don't want to start any bad discussions maybe you can send me a private message.

Cotton
"Life is a journey not a destination!"