11 replies to this topic

[Franco]

Hi Simon.

I had a very nice time in Venice. Topic: supplier evaluation, qualification and vendor rating.

There were more than a hundred Quality System Managers coming from Triveneto, the region around Venice.

I described our scenario, our market, our stategy and our Purchasing Process.

A discussion came out regarding effectiveness of QMS Certification as a Management tool, since I told them We're not ISO certified, but We satisfy our Customers !

My personal opinion, and my Company position too, was that You can achieve Your business goals and satisfy Your Customers with an appropriate QMS, but You don't need Certification as an essential prerequisite.

ISO 9000 is an effective Model, but Certification is not necessary for our business.

We have many suppliers ISO 9000 certified with many quality problems, no followup for CA, no PA, little Customer care and at the same time we have experienced suppliers with no Certification, Accreditation and so on but very, very, very commited to quality and Customer focus.

I asked them how do they perform supplier audits ? Do they use only ISO 9000 standard check lists or not ? Do they add some informations regarding the technology of supplier which they know from experience may be critical for quality ? We do it and it works well.

Many of them agreed with this idea, some were skeptical.

What's Your opinion ?

[Simon]

Good on you Franco.

Where ISO 9000 Certification is demanded by either industry sector or influential customers then the supplier has little alternative and is at the mercy of the money making juggernaut that is the "certification industry". I agree with you having the badge provides no guarantee whatsoever of supplier performance and in most cases it's an added cost that adds little value.

Stand by your principles Franco, if you are achieving your business goals whilst satisfying your customers and hopefully improving a little along the way then you ain't doing too bad.

Regards,
Simon

[Mike S.]

Franco,

Your thoughts are common-sense. ISO certification does not guarantee high quality as you and almost everyone else has experienced at one time or another. I, too, once had 3 suppliers of the same product -- 2 that were ISO certified for years and one that simply had a QMS based on MIL-I-45208A. One ISO certified supplier (a major, major company you would easily recognize) had terrible quality and service -- so bad that I had to take them off our approved-supplier list. The other ISO certified company had pretty-poor quality and I had to submit several SCAR's for poor quality. The other company was not perfect, but was by far the best of the three at quality and service.

I would much rather have personal experience with a company (or have a recommendation from someone I know) than simply knowing they have an ISO badge. If I have to pick a company and have no prior knowledge, ISO certification is a small plus in the beginning, but not a significant deciding factor.

[Simon]

Well we are in agreement that ISO 9000 Certification provides no guarantee of "quality" and it's probably safe to say that this is a widely held view.

To take it a stage further who agrees with this:

"ISO 9000 Certification may have an adverse effect on quality"

Possibly a little provocative but I'll try and substantiate the statement. It's usually the responsibility of one person e.g. 'The Quality Manager' to manage the systems and to ensure continuing compliance to standards such as ISO 9000, in my experience the same person is responsible for championing improvement initiatives within the organisation.

If this is the case wouldn't the QM's precious time be far better spent on preventive action and improvement projects rather than arranging and presenting information, crossing "i's" and dotting "t's" to satisfy the certification body / registrar.

My personal opinion, and my Company position too, was that You can achieve Your business goals and satisfy Your Customers with an appropriate QMS, but You don't need Certification as an essential prerequisite.  ISO 9000 is an effective Model, but Certification is not necessary for our business.

That's right business's aren't stupid and they will always try and run themselves in the most efficient and effective way. As Franco says ISO 9000/9004 is a very effective business management model but certification takes up a lot of time and effort and can actually get in the way of the really important things like improvement.

Just a thought.

Simon

[Mike S.]

To take it a stage further who agrees with this:

"ISO 9000 Certification may have an adverse effect on quality"

Possibly a little provocative but I'll try and substantiate the statement. It's usually the responsibility of one person e.g. 'The Quality Manager' to manage the systems and to ensure continuing compliance to standards such as ISO 9000, in my experience the same person is responsible for championing improvement initiatives within the organisation.

If this is the case wouldn't the QM's precious time be far better spent on preventive action and improvement projects rather than arranging and presenting information, crossing "i's" and dotting "t's" to satisfy the certification body / registrar.

Simon

Simon,

Troublemaker! :D In some cases you might be correct. If the org. is only after certification for the badge but does not take quality seriously, limited resources may be tied-up doing non-value-added paperwork and picking nits for the cert. body vs doing "real" work. But if they take quality seriously time will be taken for the "meat" issues of CA, PA, and continuous improvement. This is one reason I support "compliance" vs. "certification" for many companies if this is feasible.

But I must admit certification can improve quality in some cases as well -- some orgs. need the 'threat' of an outside org. watching them to "force" them to behave to some degree. Such orgs. will probably never be as good as they could be, but they might be better than if no one were watching over them.

It all boils down to just how seriously an individual company takes the issue of quality and CI. Not how much they talk about it, but how they really act.

[Simon]

Thanks for the compliment Mike.

Yes your right, human beings are procrastinators by nature (I've won medals for it) and we all need a good kick up the pants from time to time. What concerns me is that we pay for it. :P

Simon

[Manoj Mathur]

My Company is an ISO 9001:2000 , ISO 14001 and ISO/TS 16949:2002 Company. I am the MR of System. I would say definately Certifications add the values and in no case ISO Certifications are adverse to quality. After running of two successful years of running ISO 9K2K Systems in my plant, I circulated a questionaire to all the Employees asking What benifits you get from ISO.
I would say response was beyond my expectation. It is not the MR (System Persons) responsibilities but yes Top Management Comitment is very much required for successful implementation. And this is auditable also. Never the less Any ISO system auditing is based on sampling and should not be treated that ISO shall safegaurd the quality. It is we who shall make it use. I still remember, during my Lead auditer training program , three years ago, I have asked my instructor "How much beneficial ISO 14000 is ?. My Instructor told me that it fully depends upon you How effectively you can use this tool?
More you use more you get.

More Advantage of ISO shall be followed in my next post.

Manoj Mathur

[Simon]

Manoj,

We are not denying that Management Systems such as ISO 9000 if implemented in the right spirit can bring many business benefits. What we are saying is that the actual certification process (i.e. getting the badge) often adds little value or at least not as much value as it really should do.

It is possible to implement a management system based on ISO 9000 without applying for registration. In fact organisations that choose this route (such as Franco's) are probably applying the principles of ISO 9000 a lot less cynically than most organisations that are doing it for the badge.

Is it the certificates that are adding the value or is it the systems?

Simon

[Wallace Tait]

Are there any real life examples of organizations that have basicaly walked away from or avoided a system certification process and, have succeeded beyond the demands of certification, maintenance and improvement processes related to ISO.
I can only speak from my arena here in Canada. The automotive industry demands certification of suppliers. I've had the opportunity of working directly with some of these suppliers and, the snapshot's I've witnessed tell me that, automotive suppliers irespective of their tier status, could do without the heavy duty demands of a certified system.
Wallace.

[Simon]

A discussion came out regarding effectiveness of QMS Certification as a Management tool, since I told them We're not ISO certified, but we satisfy our Customers !

My personal opinion, and my Company position too, was that You can achieve your business goals and satisfy your Customers with an appropriate QMS, but You don't need Certification as an essential prerequisite.

ISO 9000 is an effective Model, but Certification is not necessary for our business.

Hi Wallace,

I quote Franco from an earlier post in this thread.

If as an experiment we were able to clone Franco's organisation, (just think two Franco's) I'm positive the one without ISO 9000 certification would have X amount of time extra available to spend pursuing improvement activities.

Or surfing the net...

Regards,
Simon

[Wallace Tait]

I'm positive the one without ISO 9000 certification would have X amount of time extra available to spend pursuing improvement activities.

Hmm Simon,
I'm not sure I agree with your position yet, I accept your right to express.

I'm not involved with the quality industry directly at all these days yet, I keep my proverbial consultancy hand in by, making myself available to clients who need an objective view of their Business Management, System (BMS) outwith the constraints of ISO9001.

I have to say, my experience tells me, many organizations that have gained certification tend to fall into the "status quo" (Not the old rock group) trap of complacancy. They become complacant due to, either sitting back on their great achievment laurells or, getting too comfy with their certification status.
The other variable IMO, may be the fact that, many certified organizations actually believe they shall gain more business due to their organization being registered and certified to the current ISO9001.
I can only speak of North America in general as, my involvement in the UK ended when I came to Canada almost 12 years ago.
IMO FWIW, Organizations that are systems thinkers by culture can manage very well without registering their BMS that may or may not ne ISO based.
Wallace.

[Puzzle]

I'm a bit simplistic about this these days.

Those businesses that want the cert on the wall to win contracts will spend a lot of time and money (wasting it), whereas the business that has operated with the quality ethic of CI will not see any difference. Just a bit more money going out of the door for joe auditor to say what a good bunch you are