International Standards
by Amy Zuckerman
Some companies have been screaming
"rip off" in a very loud, public way.
Registrars Face Change
I never met an ISO 9000 or QS-9000 registrar I didn't like.
Pete Lake at SRI, Rad Smith at KPMG and Bob Kozak at Entela are all extremely
thoughtful, helpful individuals, as are other members of the registrar "club"
I've met at conferences and seminars in recent years.
For some reason I've earned a reputation as being anti-registrar, while
nothing could be farther from the truth. If anything, I've defended registrars
as the most credible parties in the ISO 9000 family. Registrars, after all,
must earn accreditation the same way companies earn ISO 9000 certificates.
And they pay for that privilege.
Someday, if the International Organization for Standardization's Quality
System Assessment Recognition committee has its way, national accreditation
bodies will also have to "pass a test" to earn the right to bear
the ISO logo. For now, though, the burden of credibility-what holds up this
slightly incredible system-are ISO 9000 and QS-9000 registrars.
That much said, all is not well in the world of registrars. Talk to registrars
on a casual basis and they're full of complaints about the "scammers"
in their ranks. They'll also admit to the horrible truth that there's loads
of money to be made in ISO 9000 and QS-9000 work.
Those profits-yes, many registrars operate for profit-come out of the pockets
of the companies they serve. Some companies, especially very large electronics
companies, have been screaming "rip off" in a very loud, public
way. They intend to streamline the registrar system so that major corporations
(particularly those with multiple sites) can leverage off their internal
audits rather than endure a complete third-party audit for each and every
site.
Multiply basic registrar fees of roughly $35,000 for a three-year ISO 9000
cycle by 44 plants-as in the case of Motorola-and you can see why the electronics
companies are raising a ruckus. Add to the fact that some of these companies
potentially face earning an ISO 9000 certificate to work in Europe and QS-9000
for the Big Three automakers, and the ante is upped considerably.
Given that both programs have different requirements for registrars, it's
not implausible that some of these companies will be paying two sets of
registrars to pass two different tests. That's one reason the U.S. electronics
and software giants are fighting to alter the current ISO 9000 registrar
system.
Battle lines are forming around what Hewlett-Packard and Motorola have named
the Supplier Audit Confirmation proposal. Managers from both companies have
been championing SAC worldwide for more than a year now, criss-crossing
the globe, making their case to the ISO, European Union, standards bodies
and just about anyone who would listen.
In the process, they've gained the backing of just about every electronics
heavy hitter in the world. Microsoft, Xerox, Digital, Novell, Mitsubishi,
Sun Microsystems, Philips Electronics, Whirlpool, Texas Instruments (Semiconductors
Group), Bausch & Lomb, Vickers, Intel, Bell Atlantic, Siemens, Unisys
and many others have jumped on the SAC bandwagon.
In an August letter seeking industry support, Hewlett-Packard called for
"an internationally recognized conformity system for ISO 9000 compliance.
We believe that this system should allow multiple options for demonstrating
compliance to the ISO 9000 standards, namely third-party detail audit option,
supplier's declaration option and a new option that leverages the supplier's
internal audits."
Just about the time this column goes to press in late September, supporters
of SAC are expected to meet at Hewlett-Packard's Cupertino, California,
headquarters to discuss formation of a SAC pilot program. The Dutch registrar
KEMA and the British registrar Lloyd's are reportedly prepared to play ball
with the electronics majors, at least in this pilot phase.
"A company may choose to seek ISO 9000 accredited certification/registration
under a SAC pilot project," the Hewlett-Packard letter states. "Until
SAC becomes a formalized compliance option, the SAC pilot projects are negotiated
relationships between the company, the registrar and the accreditation body.
These should be in alignment with the developing SAC specifications, but
will vary depending on the needs of the individual parties."
Let's pause for a minute before I pass on the "bad" news, at least
from a registrar's perspective. I am the messenger, not the creator of SAC.
Although the recommendations contained in the proposal sound plausible,
I have no idea how well they will function in the field. If telling the
world about SAC makes me a supporter in the eyes of some registrars, I'll
take that risk. SAC is fast becoming a reality that registrars and industry
alike need to consider.
The news is that in recent weeks SAC has inched closer to reality. That
registrars as esteemed as KEMA and Lloyd's are backing the proposal might
be enough to offer it the credibility-as well as the real-life thrust-it
needs to become practice. But thanks to a recent endorsement from the American
National Standards Institute Committee on Conformity Assessment, SAC backers
have the sort of institutional backing they need to permanently alter the
way ISO 9000 and QS-9000 registrars do business.
That ANSI will ultimately back SAC is by no means certain at this writing.
The full ANSI board still must vote on SAC. That may have taken place by
the time this column is in print because an ANSI board meeting is scheduled
for September. If SAC doesn't make the September agenda, it will have to
wait for December, when the ANSI board meets again.
What is certain is that big guns-from industry majors to registrars and
standards officials-see merit in reforming the ISO 9000 registration system.
Some companies find it simply unacceptable that no uniform operating rules
exist for registrars worldwide and that fees have reached into seven figures
for major corporations.
ISO officials have always taken a free-market position on the implementation
of their standards series. "Let the buyer beware" has been their
advice and the advice of U.S. accreditation officials. Well, the market
is finally rearing its head in a big way, so now it's time to say, "Let
the registrars beware."
As for all of my friends out there who happen to make their living as credible
ISO 9000 and QS-9000 registrars, I'm not too concerned for their survival.
The ISO 9000 and QS-9000 system is well-developed and well-entrenched worldwide.
There's plenty of work to go around. In fact, the word out in the field
is there aren't enough registrars to meet the demand, which could very well
lead to customer disillusionment.
Maybe, just maybe, SAC will help.
About the author
Amy Zuckerman is author of ISO 9000 Made Easy: A Cost-Saving Guide
to Documentation and Registration (AMACOM Books). She operates an international
market research company based in Amherst, Massachusetts.
