5 replies to this topic

[Jim Wade]

Congratulations to US-based accreditation body International Accreditation Registry (IAR).

It has established a programme that will allow the certification bodies it accredits to extend ISO 900x:1994 registrations for another year.

Read more at http://www.iqa.org/p...on/c3-203.shtml

rgds Jim

[Simon]

If this sham is allowed it will be a real slap in the face for all those who have put the effort in over the last three years. I'm flabbergasted.

BTW hope the shoulders OK Jim.

Simon

[Jim Wade]

The op went well, thank you Simon, and I am enjoying the lingering dreamy effect of the anaesthetic [sp?]

Sheltering under its effect emboldens me to say that I am delighted at IAR's move. It highlights for me certain facts or possibilities:

1 An arbitrary deadline to move to a much more demanding new 'standard' is a really dumb thing. Organisations move at different rates. All we have done is create a situation where even more certificated organisations that do not meet the 'standard' are being given 9001:2000 certificates. That's the real sham, IMHO!

2 The two 'standards' existing side-by-side is a good thing. It is perhaps a precursor of where we need to be. IF - and it's a big if - the world needs to issue certificates for 'quality', surely those certificates need to reflect that good organisations exist at all sorts of levels and so we need certificates that reflect this ...

So - you have a :1994 certificate. Great! You have some sort of system that at least helps auditors to know what people are doing even though your management still operates in 1950s mode.

Ah, YOU have a :2000 certificate. Even better! Your management is beginning to be involved and you think of your business in process terms .... and so on.

3 Anything that helps destroy the existing system of comply-and-audit is to be welcomed. Bring on more rebellions!



rgds Jim

[Simon]

I agree with you Jim, organisations should have the ability to differentiate themselves within the ISO 9000 framework. However, I can't agree with the continuation of a superseded standard, which compensates for laziness and facilitates greed. Unless of course you are willing to share your anaesthetic.


Regards,
Simon

[Puzzle]

Errrrr, jsut read the article.

Is 3 years an unrealistic timeframe to achieve transition???

Regards Jims comment I wholly agree. 9001:2000 is more of a match to my employers opeartional philosophy than 1994. Made things very easy for me of course.

Typical of the Americans to change the goalposts and playing field.

[Jim Wade]

Simon, next time you are in the C*#!, you might educate the people there about the role of ISO (the organisation) in ISO 9000. I'd do it myself were I not banned

Tell them not to bother asking ISO what is going on because ISO has nothing at all to do with accreditation and certification. That particular mess has been created by the likes of the IAF, RAB, UKAS, IRCA, the certification bodies and the collaborating consultants and trainers.

rgds Jim