They do more than de-value work of real auditors. Using unaccredited certifications to represent your level of expertise is like using counterfeit fasteners on a Boeing 787. One minute your are flying along at 500 mph and the next minute you are free-falling 30,000 feet to the earth. It is like using counterfeit money to pay for goods or services. Somebody gets cheated.

I once worked, in succession, for two firms who wanted me to assess their CMM level of practice. They wanted me to find that the IT departments were performing at Level 5 (scale of 1 to 5). For each company, I did a careful audit and wrote up the findings. I made it clear that it was an internal audit and carried no weight outside of the company. At best it would give the executives some direction for process improvement. I do not know if the executives ever used the findings at the first company. I went to the Persian Gulf War I in 1990 and my job was not held for me. Neither of the companies liked my report that they were at a Level 2 or Level 3 and needed process improvement. The second company did undertake process improvement and managed to institute several working teams that resulted in what one manager called "Isolated pockets of success." The company's software engineers wrote better software afterwards. Both of the experiences were an eye-opener for me. I saw the same tendencies at a third company I was at, later on. I offered some unsolicited advice and kept out of the way. I do not know what transpired.

You wrote a good, concise, comprehensive article on this topic.

Hello Denise,

Love your articles and always look forward to reading them.

The actual certificate approach only has a marginal edge versus self certification or conformance in my opinion.

I work for a medium sized manufacturing company who holds over 60 different quality system and product approval certifications for many years now. Our certificate portfolio is across many auditors, registration bodies, and accreditation organizations. All of which are unique in their own way even if they work to a common industry standard.

I can't blame the "self conformists" for taking the position. The reason is customers still insist that even though you hold 60 different certificates, they cannot buy from you until their auditors conduct a QA audit of your system. The next scenario is customer has audited your QA system but still needs a EN 10204 3.2 certificate stamped by a third party.

In short, spending thousands of dollars annually on actual certificates may not get you ANY direct acceptance from customers. This is much like the self-conformance position but without the certification cost.

Of course, there is a myriad of other improvements to system, product, and service that certificate holders will reap over the self conformist approach when comparing the two as stand alones. It is just that for face value holding a legitimate certificate is not much more than the self-conforming position.

Thanks for the great articles and keep them coming!

Ken Kaniecki