In some way this piece suggests that there is some merit in being registered as an ISO conforming company, separate from the external pressure argument.

I cannot envisage a management team that admits to itself that it cannot sustain the management will to retain an ISO compliance strategy in the absence of a registrar pressure to do so. Consider a management team being given the choice – ISO standard systems with registration, or without registration – when there is no external requirement to register. Does anyone really believe that the ‘with registration’ choice would be made?

I’m pretty sure that there are still a lot of companies that are registered as an ISO conforming company just for commecial/marketing reasons. Doesn’t that count as a merit (from their point of view)?

It is as much a merit as a similar company joining a trade association to enhance its visibility in the market place – simply a cost of doing business.

I agree that accreditation is only required when driven by customer and market needs. If ISO 9001 isn’t required by the customer, competitive positioning, or industry standards, it can be a waste of resources. This is especially the case when the organization is already committed to quality. I always push my organization to go beyond compliance to standards to enable them to delight their customers- the results for such an organization speak for themself.

Unfortunately, there are many organizations that take the lack of market pressure for ISO accreditation as an OK for them to define quality as they see it, rather than as the customer sees it.

Hello Mark,

good for you that your organisation is doing very well and the results speak for themself.
I find it strange that your reflection towards ISO is driven by customer and market requirements. What about structuring your processes?
Don’ t you feel a need to discuss your results with a trained auditor and reflect?

How do you measure the results of your organisation and would you measure them if ISO 9001 doesn’t require KPI’s?

Peter,

I think most of us in the Quality business value having trained auditors review the QMS established. The problem that arises in many organizations is that Sr. Management does not see the value. All they see is that this takes time and money. And that expense often needs to be justified through customer and market impacts (Is this going to increase Sales? Will I be disqualified from a contract if I don’t have ISO accreditation?). It all comes down to the proverbial “bottom line”, and frankly, all businesses have to consider this.

The job for the QA professional is to get Sr. Management to see value in quality improvement initiatives, including ISO 9001 accreditation (and I am a fan of ISO 9001 with some important considerations),and thus see an impact on that bottom line. It’s never easy to demonstrate value in something subjective like quality system improvement, but that’s what makes our profession so interesting and fun.

While I agree with Ed somewhat, many companies are driven to register by customer (Market) pressure. Others that I have worked with are not but rather view the third party registration as an independent confirmation of the viability of their quality system. Further, I have found that the that the third party auditor can be used as a tool in the quality managers toolbox to help coerce improvement actions from those that may be less than convinced otherwise.

See more at http://qualitypractice.blogspot.com

Working as a consultant with an oil and gas operator I see service companies within the supply chain that have ticked the box with 9001 but where the processes aren’t read by employees and only the Quality Manager has any real clue about the processes.
Sadly some of the so called trained auditors from certification bodies are on auto pilot during audits and don’t scratch below the surface.