More than ISO 17021?
calls for changes to how the certification industry operates
The management systems certification industry is currently focused on the transition to ISO 17021:2011. Accreditation bodies are now completing their first assessments of certification bodies against the new version. Certification bodies will very soon have an idea of what, or how much, is required of them, especially in the area of technical competence (see the IRCA briefing note on ISO 17021:2011). The 2006 and 2011 iterations of ISO 17021 have been focused on consolidating certification body requirements and guidance into a single generic document (good for the certification industry), embracing change and technology (which is good for everyone), and focusing on the principles of performance (again, this is good for everyone).
The 2006 version saw 19 of the 52 IAF accreditation body members withdraw or suspend accreditation from 68 certification bodies. This may be an indicator that the IAF is not only developing stricter standards, but enforcing them, and it will be interesting to see what comes of the 2011 version in this regard. Those certification bodies that remain (which are likely to be the larger and more specialized ones) will benefit from a little more market share. But what is the end game? If these changes are aimed at improving the credibility of third party certification, how will success be measured? Perhaps it would be more interesting to know how many certificated organizations lose their certification as a result of this transition process.
In pondering these questions it is worth remembering that ISO 9001 certification, which continues to be the bread and butter of the certification industry globally, was established to facilitate the global supply chain, providing a level of confidence that the certified supplier can consistently offer the customer with what they want. With control of the third party system ‘federated out’ to national accreditation bodies, it has proved difficult for the certification industry to deliver on this because of differing interpretations, levels of competence, and business cultures. The result: customers believe that they cannot rely on ISO 9001 certification to provide assurance that suppliers in the global supply chain have the systems in place to deliver what they want. The persistent moan from certified organizations and their customers that ‘certification is a waste of time’ is difficult to counter effectively with raw numbers (‘one million certified organisations can’t be wrong’), or simply with better standards and accreditation. In addition, we need to see the benefit of business management systems and confidence in systems certification measured, and a coherent communications strategy from the certification industry to promote this, not to mention an improvement plan where our performance is less than satisfactory.
Over the past 10 years many individual certification bodies have focussed on ‘value added’ by presenting the business management system and certification in business terms – confidence, risk, and improvement – rather than simply a ‘certificate on the wall’ contract requirement. However, to get firmly on the boardroom and industry association agendas will require more than unilateral initiatives from individual organizations. We need a change in how the whole certification industry acts and communicates which speaks consistently and directly to users’ concerns. Putting the same kind of global industry resource into this kind of externally facing initiative, as we put into ISO 17021, would be a start. If we don’t, we have plenty of competitors who are willing, ready and (in some cases) already doing so.
About the author
Vince Desmond is deputy director at IRCA.
