7 Responses

  1. Andrew Nichols
    Andrew Nichols at |

    The basic premise of Quality = Certification and the decline of Certification = A decline of Quality is incorrect.

    Reply
    1. Deb Piatt
      Deb Piatt at |

      Decline in certification has nothing to do with decline in Quality.

      Organizations are establishing methods to ensure product and service quality that enhance customer satisfaction that are more in line with customer and industry requirements vs. ISO requirements.

      Some of the major causes of decline in certification can be traced to the certifying bodies failure to deliver service quality to enhance client satisfaction, in numerous areas, including planning and auditor competencies.

      Reply
  2. Michael Giguere
    Michael Giguere at |

    Well stated. In my view the fault for declining interest in ISO 9001 rests entirely on the registration bodies. There has been a failure to up sell ISO Management standards as risk mitigation tool. Board rooms ought to be pushing this. Up selling would command a higher fee and thereby the ability to engage auditors with a true sense of business. It is embarrassing the things that transpire during an audit and the “value added” notions that many auditors believe they bring to the table. Not to fault them, they are doing the best they can with their limited ability for strategic perspective on a business operation.

    Reply
  3. kwalitycert
    kwalitycert at |

    Good information, ISO 9001 consultants in Philippines ISO 9001 tremendously benefit your business, profitability and advantage, similarly as give marketing ISO Certification in Philippines.

    Reply
  4. Gordon Nelson
    Gordon Nelson at |

    ISO 9000 was an obvious crock from the beginning. As a quality manager in a very profitable shop I did not see it as useful. Back then the term ‘bureaucratic burden’ was not part of my vocabulary now look at all the pointless paperwork. The owner said we had to get registered because our big customers were pushing it. During this time those same customers started pushing SPC and nobody in the shop thought that would improve quality so we filled out the charts in the beginning of the shift and carried on. These two schemes created a quiet pervasive ‘dysfunctional compliance’. The stats were dummied up to get 1.33 Cpk, then 1.5 Cpk, and then 2.0 Cpk. The audits were another exercise in creative writing. The 3rd party auditors had no manufacturing experience and their findings reflected their dismal observations. The whole crock can be summed up as, ‘any fool can make a rule and every fool will follow it’.

    Reply
  5. Manuel Arboleda
    Manuel Arboleda at |

    Most auditors, I agree, have never run businesses successfully using the standard, and is enmeshed with their organization’s desire to earn and get clients. Strategic planning, for one, is something they cannot audit if they were never a part of an organization that practiced it.
    Sad, but the standard is a framework for running the business, and the results are what you measure. It’s a first step to Baldrige.

    Reply
  6. JACOB CHERIAN
    JACOB CHERIAN at |

    Why blame the tool , if the user is not using it for intended purposes?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.