There's virtually no middle ground when it comes to discussions about ISO 9000 registration. Most people either believe it's the best new business tool since flowcharting or some well-planned trans-Atlantic rip-off.
Whichever camp you're in, another option is now available to you.
Recently, the board of directors of the American National Standards Institute approved a policy recognizing an alternative approach to third-party registration for companies deemed to have effective management systems. Drafted by representatives from industry, third-party registrar firms, the Registrar Accreditation Board and ANSI officials, the new policy applies equally to ISO 9000 registration and ISO 14001 registration of a company's environmental management system.
Some experts believe this alternative approach could potentially save companies millions of dollars on third-party registration costs each year. But others say the savings won't amount to much, except in the case of large companies.
Decide for yourself.
Traditionally, companies in North America undergo a comprehensive registration audit once every three years. This usually involves an off-site review of documentation followed by an on-site audit lasting from a day to several weeks, based on the size and complexity of an organization. Auditors are looking for objective evidence that the quality system is functioning as described in the company's quality manual and that procedures are in place to cover key aspects of the system where an absence of documentation would adversely affect the quality of the product or service.
Under the alternative approach, registrars place more emphasis on a company's internal resources and scale back the intensity of surveillance visits for eligible companies. Registrars also may rely more heavily on site sampling. In theory, only companies with effective management systems would be eligible to take advantage of this method. But just how companies demonstrate effectiveness of their management systems has yet to be resolved. Even the task force that drafted the ANSI policy was unable to reach complete consensus on this. Officials settled on an interim definition, which will be up for review after a yearlong test period.
According to the interim definition, the management system's effectiveness is measured by the degree to which the culture of an organization has embodied and implemented concepts of management review, internal audit, and corrective and preventive actions over time. Organizations that have practiced or can show evidence of continuous application of such concepts over a period, such as three years, may be deemed to have an effective management system.
Here's the wrinkle: There are no real rules on this, at least not at the present time. I'm told that a few registrars have developed their own proprietary approaches, so companies that want to go this route may have to do some homework.
It's up to registrars to make their clients aware that an alternative exists. But nothing requires them to do so. The Independent Association of Accredited Registrars, which participated in drafting the policy, has already gone on record opposing it until the task force comes up with a more permanent definition of an effective management system. The group represents some of the most powerful registrars operating in North America, some of them undoubtedly concerned with possible abuses as a way to unfairly cut prices.
Ultimately, the accreditation bodies are responsible for policing the system. In the United States, the National Accreditation Program is expected to release guidance for registrars soon. But the guidance will not take the place of hard negotiation between companies and their registrars.
Let's face it: These potential savings come right out of registrars' pockets. You can't expect them to be dancing in the streets.
Late last year, AMP Inc., the world's largest supplier of electrical and electronic connectors and interconnection systems, became the first U.S.-based company to attain an accredited registration certificate using this alternative approach. Motorola Inc. followed soon after with 80 sites. Both companies say the savings are significant. In Motorola's case, company officials predict the savings could reach as much as 50 percent of the $4.5 million a year they have spent in the past. That's money the company has now invested in registering new sites.
The bottom line here is that alternative registration is worth a call to your registrar. If they're not helpful, try one of their competitors.
About the author
Paul Scicchitano is managing editor of Quality Systems Update and QSU's Environmental Management Report, monthly newsletters devoted to ISO 9000, QS-9000 and ISO 14000 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, 11150 Main St., Suite 403, Fairfax, VA 22030. Telephone (703) 591-9008, fax (703) 591-0971 or e-mail isoeditor@aol.com.